No one in their right mind could call this a compromise. Poland willingly and without coercion, through the action and decision making of its government – a government without the acceptance of parliament – has worsened the accession conditions. Until now we have had tragic economic condition but we belonged to an arrangement, not yet the EU, which was made up of a willing association of states and from which each country could withdraw. After acceptance of the constitution these rules will change radically. We will become an actual a member of a quasi-state from which we need the permission of the European Parliament to withdraw. We will no longer decide on a future withdrawal. By abandoning Nice we have lost the right to veto, which significantly reduces the strength of our voice.

This is unbelievable hypocrisy. Prime Minister Belka is described as someone who fights to the end. In the meanwhile, the regulations to date which result from the accession treaty say that every change that does not benefit Poland can be vetoed by Poland. If Belka presented his case firmly, it would probably be successful because this issue is more about prestige than content for European states. For us it is important, because it means that this quasi-state has no foundation. If someone claims that a lasting edifice can be built without a ideological basis, then I would say this person is an idiot. There is no place here for playing around with political correctness.

I am betting that the euro will be less efficient economically in comparison with the U.S. or South-East Asia. If the living conditions of those countries which gave up their sovereignty do not improve and there is no lasting link in the form of timeless values, then what remains? I will conduct an incredibly lively campaign, using all the resources which will be at my disposal as a deputy of the EP, to show that this is not an abstract but a concrete question: do you want to have your own country or not? This is the fundamental question and not the accession condition, although the latter are shameful. This constitution practically puts an end to sovereignty.

The previous EU, made up of 15 members, didn’t talk about different speeds, only the rich shared their money to accelerate growth for the poorest. This was the basis of their political plan. It makes sense, I’m not questioning the idea. It was an idea based on solidarity. The question is, what happened to that idea? I propose the following solutions: on the basis of the accession agreement we will finance you at a level of 25 percent because we can. If you don’t want it, then don’t agree. If, during the negotiations, we were able to achieve equal economic and legal conditions but had to give up part of our sovereignty, then I would say no. I am not speaking against poor conditions and back-door attempts to impose the domination of a few states. We had the right to veto. Every solution which deviates from the regulations of the accession treaty to Poland’s disadvantage could have been vetoed. Now we have an arrangement, according to which Poland has accepted disadvantageous economic conditions and agreed to poorer political conditions. It has agree to an arrangement in which the four most powerful countries can out vote the other countries at any time.