Program UE dla zdrowia w europejskiej debacie parlamentarnej

Abstract

EU HEALTH PROGRAMME IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

The weakness of the response to the pandemic that was visible in many EU Member States, especially in the first period of the crisis, resulted in increased expectations for action at the European level. This was reflected in the EU4Health programme prepared in the same period. The analysis carried out in this article concerns parliamentary debates on the new EU health program and, indirectly, discussions on the further direction of changes in European health policy. The author put forward two hypotheses: 1. In the parliamentary debate on the EU health programme, positive opinions (regardless of party differences) towards the proposed actions, resulting from the experience of the pandemic crisis, will prevail. 2. The analysed debate will highlight differences regarding the further deepening of the integration process in the area of health – supporters of deepening integration (‘towards a real health union’) versus supporters of cooperation based on the current state-centric approach to health in the EU. As the analysis of the strategy and speeches during the plenary debates shows, the pandemic context has become an important point of reference for these activities. It allows us to confirm the hypothesis indicating the dominance of MEPs’ positive assessment of the solutions proposed by the strategies. The second hypothesis was also confirmed. The analysed speeches presented varied assessments of further integration leading to the creation of the European Health Union. Right-wing parties emphasised the need to maintain the status quo in the field of health (health policy in the hands of the state). MEPs from the EPP, S&D and Renew Europe presented a position more open to change. Taking into account that member states are responsible for health policy and for any changes in this area (specific treaty changes), the results of the debate should be treated as a presentation of political possibilities rather than a forecast of actions for the near future.