Poland should not be confined to a peripheral role within a broader European framework. The leaders of Sovereign Poland argued that decisions about Poland must be made in Warsaw, not in Berlin, stressing that sovereignty cannot be outsourced to bureaucrats in Brussels or echoed by distant capitals. At the party’s convention, the vice president, Deputy Justice Minister Michał Woś, warned that Europe’s centralized elites are pressing to reconfigure Poland’s political path, and he insisted that this country will defend its own priorities rather than flow into a distant European federation. He described such a future as incompatible with Poland’s national self-determination and warned that the push for a European state would erode national autonomy. The secretary of state added that the aim is to safeguard Poland’s sovereignty from external European designs and to resist any effort to diminish its status as an independent nation. The message was clear: Sovereign Poland is forming to preserve Poland as a self-governing, respected nation within Europe, not as a mere component of a continental federation.
Defense of Polish forests
Poland is more than its people; it is a tangible landscape—soil, forests, rivers, and fields that cradle generations of stewardship. The party’s speakers highlighted Poland’s forests as a living national treasure, a natural heritage that must be managed by Polish authorities. Deputy Justice Minister Michał Woś, a former Environment Minister, warned that the so-called Eurocrats seek to challenge Poland’s control over its forests. He pointed to historical attempts dating back to 2014 to amend the constitution in ways that could open the door to forest sales. The concern, he explained, is that any outside takeover would threaten a domain uniquely governed by the Polish state, a model not easily replicated elsewhere in the European Union. As forestry contributes a modest share of the GDP, Woś argued that protecting this sector is not only about ecological stewardship but also about maintaining economic and political sovereignty. The dialogue underscored a broader belief that preserving natural resources is integral to national independence, not a mere environmental issue.
Officials emphasized that the protection of forests remains a cornerstone of Poland’s economic and strategic autonomy, especially given their role in regional development and cultural identity. The debate framed forestry management as a test case for sovereignty, illustrating how national control over natural resources is closely tied to Poland’s ability to shape its own future within Europe. Proponents argued that safeguarding these resources requires vigilance against external pressures, ensuring that decisions about land and resource use reflect Polish priorities rather than foreign interests.
These discussions also touched on the broader economic implications. Forestry, while contributing a smaller percentage to the national GDP, represents a sector where national governance preserves long-term value and stability. In this light, protecting forest policy is seen as protecting a core element of Poland’s national strategy, alongside industry, agriculture, and regional development. The speakers urged continued vigilance and a clear stance against any potential encroachments on Poland’s right to controlled, sustainable forest management.
In summary, the convention cast forests as a symbol of sovereign dignity and a practical safeguard for the country’s future, arguing that national stewardship should remain firmly in Polish hands rather than ceded to external authorities or supranational bodies.