Jarosław Kaczyński, the architect of Poland’s previous nationalist government, has opened a volatile new front in the country’s pre-election debate by suggesting that nationalist-led capitals should prepare to negotiate withdrawal from the European Union unless Brussels returns sweeping powers to member states.
Speaking at an economic forum in southern Poland on Wednesday, the Law and Justice (PiS) leader framed the existential threat not as a desired outcome, but as a bargaining chip. With a general election due in a year and his party polling strongly, the intervention signals a hardening of the eurosceptic rhetoric that defined Warsaw’s relationship with the bloc between 2015 and 2023.
A calculated gamble on the European stage
Kaczyński’s proposal rests on a specific reading of the continental political weather. He argued that upcoming electoral cycles in France and Spain could usher far-right forces into government, creating a critical mass of capitals willing to challenge the EU’s federalist trajectory.
“The European Union must be changed. This is my deep conviction, shared by my party and, I believe, very many Poles,” he told the gathering. His diagnosis of the bloc’s ailments centred on the European Commission, which he accused of wielding excessive influence beyond its treaty mandate.
The mechanics of his pressure campaign are two-track. First, he proposed a monitoring mechanism whereby national parliamentarians would audit EU institutions for legal overreach. Second, as an ultimate lever, he outlined a scenario where reform-minded states conclude a new intergovernmental treaty — scheduled for future ratification — while simultaneously triggering Article 50 withdrawal negotiations. The dual-track approach, he suggested, would concentrate minds in Brussels and across the member states.
Warsaw’s sharp retort
The reaction from the ruling coalition was immediate and scathing. Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a former European Council president, took to X within hours. “Jarosław Kaczyński has just announced that Poland should begin negotiations on the conditions of leaving the European Union,” he wrote, stripping the proposal of its conditional framing.
Kaczyński fired back on the same platform, accusing the premier of deliberate distortion. “We want the union to benefit not the elites, but the ordinary citizens,” he countered, listing lower energy prices, stricter migration controls and reduced bureaucratic burden as the tangible goals of his reform agenda.
Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski offered a third interpretation. “I thank Jarosław Kaczyński for his honesty,” Sikorski said, framing the remarks as a clarifying moment for voters. The implication was clear: the opposition leader has handed the government a potent campaign asset.
The ghosts of 2015–2023
Context is inescapable. During PiS’s eight years in office, Warsaw locked horns with the Commission over judicial independence, media pluralism and LGBT rights, triggering Article 7 proceedings and the freezing of billions in cohesion funds. The disputes damaged Poland’s standing in Western capitals even as its strategic stock rose on NATO’s eastern flank.
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Poland has become the primary logistical hub for Western military aid and a frontline state for refugee reception. That geopolitical centrality has complicated the EU’s rule-of-law enforcement; the Commission eventually released the frozen funds under Tusk’s government, arguing that judicial reforms had restored sufficient guarantees.
Kaczyński’s latest move suggests he calculates that the strategic indispensability of Poland — its economy among the bloc’s fastest-growing, its military spending the highest in NATO as a share of GDP — grants him licence to escalate. Whether European partners agree is another matter.
Why it Matters
Kaczyński’s intervention transforms the Polish election from a domestic contest into a referendum on the EU’s eastern frontier. If PiS returns to power — likely in coalition with smaller far-right formations — the bloc faces a founder-member state actively preparing the legal architecture for exit, however conditional. That precedent would embolden nationalist forces from Budapest to Paris and could paralyse decision-making on Ukraine, the single market and the next multiannual budget. For Brussels, the dilemma is familiar: confront a recalcitrant capital and risk accusations of meddling, or accommodate and watch the union’s legal order erode further. The next twelve months in Warsaw will test which instinct prevails.
