The Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament adopted on 25 October a resolution containing a study containing far-reaching Treaty changes prepared by the alleged Verhofstadt Group, a squad led by Belgian Euro-Federalist Guy Verhofstadt.
The plenary vote is scheduled for 22 November and will formally launch the procedure for amending the existing treaties.
Polish MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, who was a associate of the Verhofstadt Group until July, explains in an exclusive interview with Remix News why this fresh effort to transform the European Union into an undemocratic superstate, which he describes as a silent coup with communist roots, has a real chance of success if it is not stopped quickly.
I like to talk conditionally, due to the fact that for the moment, the creation of a government by the opposition is likely, but not determined. However, if this happens, it can no longer be expected that Poland will block these changes in the functioning of the EU.
The Polish opposition, at the phase of parliamentary work, supported these changes, both by the votes of representatives of its political groups in the squad of co-rapporteurs of the report, which we commonly call the Verhofstadt Group, and from which I left in July as a sign of protest, as well as by votes in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as well as in plenary votes.
Regarding the vote in plenary, the a study on parliamentary, European citizenship and democracy, The opposition voted in favour of abolishing this right of veto.
During the vote in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament on 25 October, representatives of these Polish parties expressed their fundamental support for the plan to make a superstate and reduce the function of associate States to the function of "lands" in the German style.
So it is almost certain that if these 3 parties form a government in Poland with Donald Tuski in the lead, they will support these changes.
We must take account of the experience with the Constitutional Treaty. There were many resistance, and eventually, under force and blackmail, even the most resistant Britain agreed. This treaty was blocked by only 2 referendums, in the Netherlands and France. Only then was this treaty abandoned. However, it was yet adopted in a truncated form and renamed the Treaty of Lisbon. Thus, the past of the Constitutional Treaty shows that even the top opposition over time gives way and gives way under pressure.
The force here is very high, and the tools available to the European Commission are far more powerful than erstwhile the Constitutional Treaty was being pushed through. At the time, the Commission could not block funds, as it is presently doing. It cannot put a associate State against a wall on imaginary allegations concerning, for example, the alleged regulation of law.
The arsenal of extortion and blackmail is much larger present and is actively exploited. French president Marine Le Pen said that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni does not want to vote for an immigration and relocation package, considering that a maritime blockade is needed, alternatively than specified an ineffective measure. However, she was threatened that the tranche of Italian resolution funds would be blocked, and she bowed under force due to the fact that she risked, as we know, an attack on Italy's financial markets.
Against this final expression and the deficiency of respect for the rule of consensus. We worked on the study from July 2022 to July 2023. It was hundreds of hours of negotiation. There were six representatives of six political groups, including me on behalf of the Group of European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). The Identity and Democracy Group was not allowed.
This is the alleged "sanitary cordon" policy imposed by another groups, from the centre-right EPP to the utmost left. As for the six rapporteurs, the Conference of Presidents decided that there would be six co-rapporteurs, i.e. there would be a consensus principle. This means that everyone was to agree to the final version.
As 1 of these six co-rapporteurs, I protested against various solutions, unfortunately unsuccessfully. I have proposed another solutions, specified as the home of Subsidiaries of the TEU composed of presidents of national constitutional courts, or the red card procedure, in which half of the national parliaments could hold government in the European Commission, etc.
All of this was rejected, and the "consensus of six co-rapporteurs" rule was replaced with "consensus minus one". In another words, the 5 remaining political groups agreed on matters between themselves and the ECR yet besides found themselves outside the sanitary cordon. That's why I locked the door on behalf of my group.
Absolutely not.
First of all, I would inform against reading the motion for a resolution itself, due to the fact that I heard it with my own ears, as said among the co-rapporteurs, that the resolution should be formulated in specified a way as to hide the most extremist proposals and reorganise them so that even in the camp these 5 political groups, from the communist left to the European People's Party, would not rise resistance. Therefore, the resolution itself is simply a "light" version, a version that is deliberately falsified to hide the actual radicalism of what is on 110 pages of the report.
As for the Conference on the Future of Europe, it was only a preparation. 8 100 representatives of alleged civilian society gathered. They were subjected to coaching and formatted with the aid of NGOs like Soros, so as to put in their mouth a message that the Brussels establishment wants to be heard by a wider public. It had nothing to do with public consultation. It was just a screen, a setting, a Pothimkin village built to make a reference. In fact, the content of the conference was written in the offices of the European Commission and the Spinelli Group.
It is worth noting that in the European Parliament's resolution, its authors mention to the Manifesto of Ventotene Altiero Spinelli, an Italian Trotsky Communist. His manifesto is quoted first and Schuman's declaration second. This clearly shows that the thought of amending the EU Treaty is rooted in the communist Marxist imagination of a Europe in which national states are abolished and democracy does not actually exist.
Just read what Spinelli wrote about it. Schuman preached that his thought was not to merge countries to make a superstate, and the thought of the Union as a superstate has its origin in the concepts revealed by Spinelli in Manifesto with Ventotene.
It says that "it derives its imagination and assurance of what must be done, of the consciousness that it represents the deepest needs of modern society, and not from any prior designation by the will of the people, not yet existing. In this way, he issues basic guidelines for the fresh order, the first social discipline aimed at unformed masses. Through this dictatorship of the revolutionary organization a fresh state will be created, and around this country a new, actual democracy will emerge".
This is pure Bolshevikism! This future democracy, as in communism, is to be conducted by the dictatorship of revolutionary parties. The Ventotene Manifesto continues that it will be a unchangeable national state with a European army etc.
Let us be honest: this draft improvement of the EU Treaties is communist and rejects Schuman's Christian-democratic concept. The Spinelli Group, which co-authors the proposal, is an informal group in the European Parliament, which consists of respective twelve MEPs. They claim to be federalists, but their task is actually anti-federalist.
In the federation, if we look at the German national Republic, Switzerland or the United States, the components of the federation are equal to or nearly equal to. all state in the United States has 2 representatives in the Senate. The German lands have an almost equal representation in the Bundesrat. The same applies to the Council of States in Switzerland.
In the European Union, the vote of the associate States is proportional to the population. So this is not only an anti-democratic project, but besides an anti-federalist project, even though they call themselves federalists. In fact, they are far from national concepts. They're centralizers.
This is simply a group of political ideologists, any of whom I would even call fanatics, who want to build a superstate on the ruins of national states, in which political oligarchy will regulation in an inexplicable way and avoid democratic control of citizens.
Yeah. And erstwhile adopted, there will be no request to push the will of any associate States erstwhile it can be circumvented. This is an interesting fact, due to the fact that there is no specified thing in any global organization that a statutory, constitutional act of an organization is adopted differently than unanimously.
Another revolutionary change concerns the way EU competences are allocated. So far – at least in theory, due to the fact that in practice it is somewhat different – associate States are granting the Union fresh powers. On the another hand, according to this fresh draft treaty on which the European Parliament is presently debating, the Union could formally grant itself fresh competences and decide on the competences of the associate States.
At present, at least on paper, in accordance with Article 5, there is the alleged award principle. This means that the Union has only the powers which have been conferred on it by the associate States and are listed in the Treaties.
In contrast, the Verhofstadt Group study proposes that 10 areas of competence be transferred to the Union, including 2 as exclusive competences, in the climate and environment, and 8 as shared competences. The Treaty provides that shared powers are those in which the implementation of the Union takes precedence and that associate States may act only to the degree that the Union does not exercise those powers.
In short, it will be the Union that will decide what the powers and scope of sovereignty of the countries are, alternatively than the another way around. In this way, sovereignty within the European Union would no longer remainder in the associate States but in the Union itself and the Union would be subordinate.
Incidentally, the euro is expected to become mandatory for all EU members. That is why I am talking about the threat that associate States will simply become "lands": they will only be European Union countries, as there are German countries.
At the minute economical immigration is indeed the exclusive competence of the associate States on the basis of the existing European treaties, but in practice this is not respected. The final migration pact with the relocation rule gives the EU powers which have not been given by the associate States.
As for future competences, if we pass through all the competences that the EU will receive – environment, climate, forestry, public health, cross-border transport infrastructure, external border policy, abroad affairs, interior security, defence, civilian defence, industry, education... associate States have small left. associate States' competences will so be residual and partial.
There is besides a large chapter in the cultural revolution, or sex ideology, in which everywhere in the Treaty "the equality of women and men" is replaced by the concept of "gender". And this is to enter the catalogue of alleged European values.
Failure to let same-sex marriages in a associate State will constitute a violation of the regulation of law within the meaning of the fresh EU definition. Let us add that Article 7, which has been criticised by Poland and Hungary for years, would be amended in specified a way that it can be concluded that the country does not respect the regulation of law and is punished not unanimously but by a majority of the another associate States.
The adoption of these changes will consequence in associate States being incapacitated on this issue. It will be easier to punish the associate State and block the EU funds due to it. In short, what they are doing now illegally could be done legally, due to the fact that everything would be enshrined in the Treaty.
No, they're not. The work of the parliamentary squad began in July 2022. However, we are talking about a squad set up at the initiative of the ministers of European affairs in Germany and France. Their study was written by scientists who wrote something that these 2 ministers can now mention to. The themes are akin and the intentions converge, but the similarities end there.
Parliament's study is earlier, more extended and deeper and, above all, formal. It is based on Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union and launches the procedure for amending the Treaty, while the German-French study is simply an expert commissioned. These 2 reports are very different.
It will first pass in the European Parliament. Roughly, judging by erstwhile votes, I foretell it should be about 330 votes "for" and 170 votes "against". This is shown by erstwhile votes, for example on the full abolition of veto law, as foreseen in another study voted in the European Parliament in September.
The proposal to amend the EU treaties, erstwhile adopted by the European Parliament, will be placed on the EU Council's desk, which includes EU-27 ministers. It will be forwarded to the European Council, namely the gathering of Heads of State and Government.
The European Council may then decide by simple majority to convene a convention, which is unusual. It is simply a kind of Convention which was erstwhile presided over by Giscard d'Estaing and which led to the collapse of the EU Constitutional Treaty. specified a convention is an institution provided for in the existing treaties. The next step is the decision to convene an intergovernmental conference that will pass all this together with a joint agreement on Treaty changes.
My answer to your question is that if the public and political forces do not wake up now and halt it at an early stage, the EU's fight will proceed to the very end. On the another hand, if opposition is now met, and opposition is built in the societies of the associate States and influences political debates and elections, if the forces against this change of government come to power in France as expected, and if the political scene moves to the right in the next year's elections to the European Parliament, if it becomes an crucial issue for these European elections, as it should be, it is simply a chance to block these Treaty changes.
But if this is happening quietly, as has been the case so far, while maintaining the silence of politicians and the media, this process will proceed to the very end. Now the work is being conducted beyond radar range. Only experts and very fewer journalists have noticed this.
Incidentally, this is the intention to do it on its own, in a discreet way. The public should not note that the fight is about to be fought, that the European Union as a community of sovereign states is being liquidated and a superstate is being created without the consent of the nation, and associate States are being brought into the function of German states.
Therefore, like the capitol geese, present we must inform and inform that this coup is about to take place. There would be nothing incorrect with it if European societies agreed to it. If people want to abolish national states, that's fine, even if I don't like it. Do you people want a superstate in which the caste of Eurocrats will regulation without the control of citizens? If so, express your approval.
But in Brussels, they know that there is no specified agreement and there will be no specified agreement. They want to do it secretly, which is why I call it a conspiracy and a coup. It's an attack on democracy. Robert Schuman has to rotation over in his grave. If he had lived and been a associate of the European Parliament, he would have voted against. Like Italy Alcide de Gasperi, another of the founding fathers of Europe.
The problem is that Europe was kidnapped, stolen. Just as Zeus, in the form of a bull, kidnapped Europe, so the leftist-liberal communities possessed something that was a concept of Christian genesis, something that was based on the rule of subsidiarity, which, incidentally, derives from the social discipline of the Church. This thing is converted by them into a task with communist roots. The authors of the European Parliament's motion for a resolution and study do not even hide it.
![Wojewódzkie święto policji w piątek w Końskich. Wielka uroczystość i piknik w Sielpi [wideo]](https://tkn24.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Wojewodzkie-Swieto-Policji-w-Konskich.jpg)
