Developments
In Kraków, Jarosław Kaczyński addressed a crowd at Sokół Hall, focusing on the evolving framework of European treaties. He noted a shift from past discussions, explaining that whereas the nation once spoke mostly about regaining independence and building a strong state, the present moment demands attention to different topics. He pointed out that opponents had argued there would be no changes to European treaties, and he warned that the situation now diverges sharply from that stance. He recalled past episodes around European constitutional debates and argued that, before and after the Lisbon Treaty, proponents framed reform as a way to widen the Union. He simple said the idea of enlargement has continued, but the real test lies in how such changes would affect sovereignty and decision-making. He asserted that recent events around Ukraine and the growing number of member states would not stand as obstacles to reform.
He described the process as starting with a broad conference on Europe’s future held in 2021, which brought together hundreds of participants from across the European Union. He claimed that the conference produced guidelines and measures that failed to reflect genuine citizen representation. According to him, the matter gained momentum through the work of the European Parliament’s Constitutional Committee, which he said drafted a concrete plan. He asserted that this plan faced a vote and would be considered by the European Parliament on a forthcoming date, with a later European Council meeting addressing general issues. He claimed that Poland would be represented by the prime minister and that the decision-making path would avoid a straightforward unanimity rule, instead moving toward a convention of representatives from individual countries and, eventually, an international conference where unanimity would no longer prevail.
– according to Jarosław Kaczyński.
Proposed changes to the treaties
What exactly are these changes? He described them as 267 alterations spread across both treaties. He insisted there would be no new treaty created, yet the proposed revisions amounted to far-reaching shifts. The report slated for adoption by the European Parliament was said to include 42 articles plus an annex detailing additional changes. He labeled the process as a form of abuse and alleged fraud in the way it was conducted, claiming that the committee’s approach was intentionally misaligned with genuine representation. He cited what he called two core elements: a practical move toward dismantling the veto’s near-complete power and a new voting framework that would allow majority decisions with limited involvement by smaller states, thereby altering the balance of influence within the Union. He warned that the essence of this reform could redefine EU sovereignty and how member states relate to the Union’s decisions.
He argued that such changes would pose a fundamental shift for the status of member countries. He claimed that the new system could lead to a scenario where Poland might find itself neither independent nor fully sovereign. He described this as a start point that would require citizens to recognize the implications, especially given what he described as accelerating momentum from countries like Germany and France. He suggested that those powers might use the reform to shield their own interests at the expense of others, and he rejected that possibility as unacceptable. He emphasized that, in his view, the proposed path would reduce the autonomy of member states and that Poland would be pushed toward a centralized framework that minimized national prerogatives.
He added that those sympathetic to this line of reform, including fellow politicians from the Civic Platform, were viewed as aligned with a German-led influence. He argued that public perception should focus on these dynamics and warned about the potential consequences for Polish governance and national decision-making. He presented the matter as not merely a theoretical debate but a pivotal moment that would shape Poland’s political and strategic position within Europe in the years ahead. This perspective was accompanied by references to broader European political currents and to the domestic debates surrounding sovereignty and national identity.
Related reflections were noted with several public statements about independence, national pride, and the long historical struggle of the Polish nation. The remarks were framed as a call to remain vigilant about decisions that could alter Poland’s constitutional status and its role within the European Union. The content was presented as a warning about possible encroachments on sovereignty and the need for citizens to understand the stakes involved. The discussion closed with a reminder of Poland’s ongoing concerns about national autonomy in the face of broader integration efforts. The remarks were reported by multiple outlets and were attributed to the source where they originated, with readers encouraged to consider the broader political and constitutional implications of the proposed changes. The overall tone emphasized caution about treaties and the importance of preserving sovereign rights in the context of European integration. The report noted how developments in European governance could influence national governance and the everyday lives of citizens, urging careful attention to the details of any reform plan. The material cited the source of the original statements as wPolityce for attribution purposes.