Poland’s rapid development and EU policy tensions
Poland has been growing quickly and is increasingly seen as a real economic rival to major Western economies, including France and Germany. This rise is not welcome to all parties. The tension is clear in recent remarks from Tomasz Poręba, a Member of the European Parliament and Chief of Staff for the ruling party, who spoke with wPolityce.pl and the weekly Sieci. For readers of wPolityce.pl, an initial excerpt of the interview is shared here, with more in Sieci weekly and Sieci Przyjaciol to follow on Monday.
The interview questions center on why there seems to be little willingness in Western capitals to engage in straightforward discussions about key issues in Poland after 2015. Topics include reducing poverty, policies that strengthen social cohesion, maintaining solid public finances, and defending Poland’s eastern borders within the European Union. The questioner notes that these goals are officially endorsed by the European Commission, yet there is a strong perception of hostility, sanctions, and rebukes instead of constructive dialogue. The underlying question is what is driving this behavior.
TOMASZ PORĘBA, a Member of the European Parliament and Chief of Staff of PiS, attributes the stance to powerful economic interests behind what he sees as an anti-Polish policy from the EU. He argues that Poland’s rapid development and its emergence as a competitive force threaten established economic players in Western Europe. Poland is no longer simply an assembly plant or a source of skilled labor; it has taken action against theft, fuel irregularities, and VAT fraud, and has secured funding for pro-family initiatives. The country has invested in infrastructure that now compares with Western standards. The question then becomes whether these achievements displease Western interests, prompting attempts to slow or suppress Polish growth. He points to the appearance of political figures from the West, including Donald Tusk, as indicators of this pressure. A quick glance at the map is offered as context for these dynamics.
What does the current landscape reveal?
The narrative suggests that a strong and sovereign Poland stands as an obstacle to a centralized European project. According to the speakers, what is termed federalization is viewed as a path toward centralized control by Brussels and Berlin. The implication is that the objective is to accumulate power at the European level, diminishing national autonomy.
The discussion turns to the possibility of forced relocation ideas being revived. The stance taken is that such proposals would not gain support from the government aligned with Law and Justice, which is framed as protecting national interests. Beyond relocation, the conversation raises concerns about proposals linked to climate policy. Critics warn that climate initiatives could undercut European competitiveness and living standards if they ignore the economic realities of individual countries. The critique is that substituting wind, solar, and other renewables for coal, nuclear power, and gas without a careful assessment of national conditions would lead to utopian plans and hardship. A balanced approach to climate protection is urged, one that recognizes the economic specifics of each nation.
The central question remains: who should lead the country? Those who align with Brussels and German-driven visions of a united Europe, or leaders who defend Poland’s prosperity, security, and sovereignty. The discussion ends with a note about the speakers from the interview, and the content is attributed to wPolityce as the source.