How the US President is Building His Legacy

According to the liberal media and social media platforms, he has simply gone mad. But even conservative commentators are asking: Does he know what he’s doing? His popularity ratings are low, with 70% of Americans opposing his actions regarding Greenland, and the GOP must prepare to lose control of the House of Representatives. However, there is another explanation: in his second and final term, Trump is thinking more about how he will be remembered by history and less about poll results.

Author: Maciej Kożuszek

“This is my last election. After this, I’ll have more flexibility,” Barack Obama told Dmitry Medvedev on March 26, 2012, assuming the microphones were off. In Poland, this statement is primarily remembered as a symbol of Obama’s “reset” with Russia. However, Obama also expressed an important truth about the American system concerning presidents who are elected for two terms. During the first term, thoughts turn to the second; during the second, thoughts turn to one’s presidential legacy and how to implement one’s political plan as efficiently as possible. Obama’s example shows that “greater flexibility” can have disastrous consequences: the implementation of his plan led to the creation of ISIS in the Middle East and the start of the war in Ukraine. However, Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize remained intact because it had been awarded well in advance…

Apart from Trump’s irrationality, a second diagnosis dominates among commentators: he is not as strong as previously thought. They predict that he will face an internal crisis, lose the midterm elections, see his ratings fall, and be further weakened by competition within his own party for the 2028 presidential nomination. This is a classic example of drawing false conclusions based on true premises. If the midterm elections were held today, it seems certain that the Democrats would take control of the House of Representatives. In the so-called generic ballot — polls measuring voter preferences without dividing them into congressional districts — Democrats enjoy a lead of about 5 percentage points.

In midterm elections, when Americans do not elect a president, voter mobilization is important because turnout is usually lower. Democrats have even more reason to be optimistic here, as they enjoy a 16-point lead among voters who say they are “certain to vote.” The fact that the overall level of trust in Democrats in Congress (28%) is lower than that in Republicans (35%) may be problematic, but only in 2028 when the deeply crisis-stricken party will have to decide whether to follow Zohran Mamdani’s radical leftist path. In House elections, Americans vote in districts. Progressive candidates are put forward in more progressive areas, while more centrist candidates are put forward in the center of America.

But why is the conclusion that Trump is weak false? He himself says that if the Democrats take control of the House, they will attempt to impeach him again. This is true insofar as Trump, like any politician, would prefer to have absolute power. However, sharing power with Congress has its advantages. First, the spectacle of impeachment—which obviously won’t lead to Trump’s removal from the White House—can be a great tool for mobilizing and uniting his supporters. Second, responsibility can be shared by using one of the oldest tricks in American politics.  “I have a great plan, but Congress (or the president, in the Polish context) is making it difficult for me.” Thanks to this trick, Biden shifted all responsibility for delays in supporting Ukraine to Congress, even though the White House was actually responsible for many of them. Even obedient liberals, led by Donald Tusk, criticized the Republicans in the House, not the president. Third, Congress’s tools for stopping the president’s plans are limited, especially in his second term. “I have a pen, and I have a phone,” Barack Obama said in 2014 during his second term when Congress was not cooperating with him. “So, I can sign executive orders, and I can use the weight and importance of my office to convince people of my plans.”

The American system is designed so that the president is elected every four years. During his term, he is granted significant power, making it difficult to remove him from office. This is why midterm elections and polls are important, though they should not be fetishized. Harry Truman, the architect of the postwar system whom everyone is mourning now, holds the record for the lowest approval rating in modern U.S. history. In February 1952, only 22 percent of Americans approved of Truman’s performance. During Ronald Reagan’s eight years as president, Republicans never controlled the House of Representatives. In his last two years, 1987–1989, they also lost control of the Senate. However, history has forgotten these turbulent times in the case of both presidents, focusing instead on the legacy they left behind.

So, the real question is: What legacy does Trump want to leave behind? As a second-term president with a particular character, he has a much greater tolerance for domestic and international turbulence. This must be considered when answering the question: Are the steps taken by the Trump administration rational? The measure here is not the scale of the turmoil and endless episodes of liberal hysteria but whether Trump’s actions serve to implement his plan. Anyone who knows a little history knows that no one has complete control over it and that every plan crumbles when it comes into contact with reality. Moreover, the challenges Trump faces, as well as those facing the US and the West as a whole, are so great that the means used to achieve one goal may prove to be an obstacle to achieving others. For example, Trump would like Europe to clearly stand with the US against China and Russia. However, achieving this goal requires “maximum pressure” to be exerted on Europe. However, Europe, as we clearly saw in Davos, is reluctant to do so.

The paradox of our times is that many people essentially agree with some of Trump’s views. Does Europe have a problem with migration and other issues? Of course. Does Europe need to stop “free riding” when it comes to security? Absolutely! Is it necessary to reduce dependence on rare earth metals in the face of confrontation with China? Yes. Would greater U.S. involvement in Greenland, in terms of both security and economics, increase NATO’s security? Regardless of emotional attitudes, the answer is yes.

The problem is not the diagnoses; the problem is Trump. Europe agrees but would prefer a better atmosphere. However, Trump might respond by drawing on the experience of the Cold War and, above all, the Biden administration. When the atmosphere was good, Europe was satisfied and issued statements about its readiness to meet the challenges of the era. Still, it did nothing.

There is Hope for a European Renewal

The ultimate goal is the spiritual renewal of Europe, as expressed by Vice President Vance in the NSS in Munich and by President Trump in Davos. However, there is a problem with reconciling goals because the pressure Trump puts on Europe puts his potential allies in a difficult position in this renewal effort. This is why several right-wing parties and leaders in the West have distanced themselves from Trump in response to the Greenland crisis. A more realistic operational plan is to break European unity. Contrary to declarations about how united and assertive Europe was on the issue of Greenland, this is already happening. This is illustrated by leaked text messages from Macron proposing a bilateral meeting in Paris while the European Council was establishing a united anti-Trump front. Europe resembles gang members who emphasize “no cooperation” during their get-togethers while selling each other out, figuring on receiving lighter sentences.

Polish politicians, especially those on the right, must participate in this process in a way that considers Poland’s interests. President Nawrocki’s approach to Trump’s Peace Council proposal exemplifies this dilemma. So far, the most advantageous option has been chosen. In view of these choices, two principles must be kept in mind. First, it is the role of Polish politicians, not Trump, to look after our Polish interests. Second, we should take advantage of parts of his plan that align with ours. Breaking up European unity is one of them. If you know your history, you know that the road to greater “European” autonomy, as the view from Paris and Brussels, has always led through Moscow—and today, through Moscow and Beijing.

For the original in Polish, please access: https://niezalezna.pl/swiat/trumpa-randka-z-historia-jak-prezydent-usa-buduje-swoje-dziedzictwo/562686

The post Trump’s rendezvous with history appeared first on Polonia Institute.

Prof. Piotr Witakowski

1. CRIME AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND

 The resolution on defense adopted by the European Parliament on March 12 of this year [1] takes away the sovereignty of the Republic of Poland in this area. This is yet another act of the European Parliament directed against Polish sovereignty. In November 2023, thanks to the votes of 9 Polish MEPs, the European Parliament passed a resolution depriving the Republic of Poland of sovereignty in many areas. A few days later, I sent an article entitled “A Crime Against the Republic of Poland” to many people and institutions. Below you can find the full text of the article.

A Crime Against the Republic of Poland

On November 22nd, a vote was held in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on a draft resolution entitled “Proposals of the European Parliament for amendment of the Treaties” [2]. The resolution calls for the introduction of 267 amendments to the Treaty of Lisbon, radically changing the powers of Member States, including those affecting the Republic of Poland. It calls for a significant limitation of the independence of the Republic of Poland by giving the right to decide on many aspects of social, economic, and political life to unelected bodies of the European Union. The provisions of this resolution, therefore, constitute an interference in the constitutional rights of Polish parliamentary authorities and the Government of the Republic of Poland.

Nine MEPs elected in Poland voted in favor of such a curtailment of the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Poland. They were: Marek Balt, Marek Belka, Robert Biedroń, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Łukasz Kohut, Bogusław Liberadzki, Leszek Miller, Róża Thun und Hohenstein and Sylwia Spurek [3]. The resolution was adopted by a majority of 17 votes (291 in favor, 274 against, and 44 abstentions). It would therefore have been rejected if these nine Polish parliamentarians had voted against it.

The events in the European Parliament are an analogy to the Partition Sejm of 1773. At the beginning of August 1772, Russian, Prussian, and Austrian troops simultaneously entered Polish territory and began to occupy the territories agreed upon between them. However, the occupiers were not satisfied with the territorial gains alone, but wanted the already accomplished partition of the Republic of Poland to be accepted and approved by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland. By bribing some of the deputies and terrorizing the rest, the occupiers achieved their desired goal at the Partition Sejm in 1773. According to the occupiers’ narrative, Poland was to benefit in many ways. External security was to be provided by the occupying powers. They also guaranteed the “cardinal rights”, and in the country, order was restored and “anarchy eliminated.” Nowadays, this is called “restoration of the rule of law.” The Republic of Poland was not completely eliminated.

Two more partitions were needed for that. But it lost the essential attribute of independence – it agreed that its fate would be decided not in Warsaw, but in  St. Petersburg, Vienna and Berlin. Now, the “benefit of the Republic of Poland” is supposed to lie in the fact that its fate will be decided in Brussels and Berlin. Tsarina Catherine was to be the guarantor of the rule of law after the first partition, and the European Commission is to be the guarantor of the rule of law after the adoption of the European Parliament resolution.

The moral judgement of the Polish representatives who voted for the limitation of Polish independence is clear and such people are usually referred to as renegades or traitors. However, the legal qualification of their act is important. To do so, we must refer to the Penal Code in force in Poland [4]. In Chapter XVII, entitled “A Crime Against the Republic of Poland”, the first three articles read as follows:

Art. 127. § 1. Whoever, with the aim of depriving the independence, detaching part of the territory or changing the constitutional system of the Republic of Poland by force, undertakes, in consultation with other persons, activities aimed directly at realising this goal, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of not less than 10 years or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for life.

• 2. Whoever makes preparations to commit the offence referred to in § 1,

shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 3 and 20 years.

Art. 128. § 1. Whoever, in order to remove by force a constitutional body of the Republic of Poland, undertakes activities aimed directly at achieving this goal,

shall be subject to the penalty of imprisonment for a term of between 3 and 20 years.

• 2. Whoever makes preparations to commit the offence referred to in § 1,

shall be subject to the penalty of imprisonment for a term of between 3 months and 5 years.

• 3. Whoever influences the official activities of a constitutional body of the Republic of Poland by means of violence or unlawful threats

shall be subject to the penalty of imprisonment for a term of between 1 and 10 years.

Art. 129. Whoever, being authorised to act on behalf of the Republic of Poland in relations with the government of a foreign state or a foreign organisation, acts to the detriment of the Republic of Poland, shall be subject to the penalty of imprisonment for a term of between one and ten years.

The act committed by the nine MEPs mentioned above fulfils the conditions set out in Article 127(1) and Article 129. It should be emphasised that this act was committed by a repeat offender. All these MEPs have voted against Poland countless times. Despite this, they continue to represent Poland in the European Parliament and enjoy full civil rights. The Penal Code provides for the possibility of curbing such harmful activities, as stated in Article 40 of the Penal Code.

Art. 40. § 1. Deprivation of public rights includes the loss of active and passive voting rights to a public authority, a professional or economic self-government body, the loss of the right to participate in the administration of justice and to hold office in state and local government or professional bodies and institutions, as well as the loss of any military rank held and demotion to the rank of private; deprivation of civic rights shall also include the loss of orders, decorations and honorary titles, and the loss of the ability to obtain them during the period of disqualification.

• 2. The court may order the deprivation of civic rights in the event of a conviction:
• to a custodial sentence of not less than 3 years for an offence committed as a result of a motivation deserving of particular condemnation;

There is no doubt that activities aimed at undermining the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Poland deserve particular condemnation. It is therefore surprising why such harmful anti-Polish activities have not yet met with a response from any state authority obliged to protect the state and the existing legal order. Since the institutions are silent, perhaps the time has come for the citizens of the Republic of Poland to speak out on this matter.

Warsaw, 30 November 2023.

In the face of this unprecedented attack on the sovereignty and independence of our homeland, the question “What needs to be done to activate the institutions obliged to defend it?” was included in a short cover letter addressed to the recipients of my article.

The article received many responses, many of which called for the prosecutor’s office to be notified of the crime. CitizenGo Poland proposed to create a petition on its platform regarding this matter. In accordance with this proposal, I prepared a petition for the CitizenGo portal to the National Prosecutor’s Office with the following content:

Petition

Polish MEPs should be stripped of their right to represent Poland in the European Parliament.

To the National Public Prosecutor’s Office:

On 22 November 2023, in a vote on the resolution “Proposals of the European Parliament on Amendment of the Treaties”, 9 MEPs representing Poland voted in favor of partially depriving the Republic of Poland of its independence and sovereignty. According to the resolution, this is to be achieved by depriving the elected authorities of the Republic of Poland of their constitutional powers and transferring these powers to the authorities of the European Union, which are not elected by the Polish people. The act committed by Marek Balt, Marek Belka, Robert Biedroń, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Łukasz Kohut, Bogusław Liberadzki, Leszek Miller, Róża Thun und Hohenstein and Sylwia Spurek constitutes a crime against the Republic of Poland as defined in the Penal Code in Art. 127 and Art. 129. We believe that by acting against the independence of the Republic of Poland, the aforementioned MEPs have disgraced themselves and lost the right to represent the Republic of Poland in the European Parliament. We call on the National Public Prosecutor’s Office to indict these MEPs and demand that they be deprived of their public rights in accordance with Article 40 of the Penal Code. This will prevent them from representing Poland in the European Parliament and from further damaging the Republic of Poland.

2. PETITION TO STRIP POLISH MEPS OF THEIR PUBLIC RIGHTS

The aforementioned article ‘A Crime Against the Republic of Poland’ was posted on the portal as the justification for the petition. The petition and its justification were sent to numerous individuals and institutions on December 14, 2023. The petition began to attract signatures (1,688 people signed the petition in total [5]). Without waiting for the end of the signature collection campaign, the Institute of National Remembrance forwarded the petition to the National Public Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, the Preparatory Proceedings Department of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office informed me in a letter dated January 11, 2024 (Fig. 1) that it was transferring the case ‘for further proceedings’ to the Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office in Warsaw. Soon, I also received a letter from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office dated January 18, 2024 (Fig. 2). In the letter, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office informs that it is transferring the case ‘for further proceedings’ to the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor’s Office.

In the Notification (Zawiadomienie), the most important part is the operative part, which constitutes a refusal to initiate an investigation.

‘The secretariat of the District Prosecutor’s Office for Warszawa-Mokotów announces that, by decision of December 21, 2023, it refused to initiate an investigation into the action of November 22, 2023 in Brussels, committed to the detriment of the Republic of Poland by persons authorised to act on behalf of the Republic of Poland in relations with a foreign organization – the European Union, in the form of established Members of the European Parliament, by voting in favor of a draft resolution “Proposals of the European Parliament on amendment of the Treaties”, thereby acting to limit the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Poland, i.e. an act under Article 129 of the Penal Code, pursuant to Article 17(1)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it has been established that the act does not contain the characteristics of a criminal offense.

Particularly noteworthy are the last three lines of the justification in Notice 3 – “acting to limit the sovereignty and independence”, but ‘the act does not contain the characteristics of a criminal offense.”

The cited legal basis for refusing to initiate an investigation, i.e. Article 17 § 1 point 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reads as follows [4]:

Particularly noteworthy are the last three lines of the justification in Notice 3 – “acting to limit the sovereignty and independence”, but ‘the act does not contain the characteristics of a criminal offense.”

The cited legal basis for refusing to initiate an investigation, i.e. Article 17 § 1 point 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reads as follows [4]:

“Proceedings shall not be initiated, and those already initiated shall be discontinued, when the act does not contain the characteristics of a prohibited act or the law states that the perpetrator does not commit a crime.” The District Prosecutor’s Office justifies its refusal to initiate an investigation by stating that, in its opinion, the act “with the aim of restricting sovereignty and independence” does not constitute the elements of a criminal offense. This statement by the District Prosecutor’s Office clearly contradicts the wording of Articles 127 and 129 of the Penal Code.

3. NOTIFICATION OF A CRIME

At the same time as the District Prosecutor’s Office was making its own interpretations of the provisions of two articles of the Penal Code, a petition was being collected on the CitizenGo Polska portal to deprive 9 (nine) MEPs of their public rights and the right to represent Poland in the European Parliament in accordance with Article 40 of the

Criminal Code – in the European Parliament. On January 19, 2024, a notification of a suspected crime having been committed was submitted to the National Public Prosecutor’s Office, to which the above-mentioned petition was attached, as well as a list of names of 1,282 of its current signatories, indicating the website where further signatures were added to the petition. A copy of the notification, together with the aforementioned list, was also forwarded to the President of the Republic of Poland, Andrzej Duda. In response, the Preparatory Proceedings Department of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office informed me in a letter dated February 19, 2024 (Fig. 4) that it had forwarded the case “for further proceedings” to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Warsaw, which in turn informed me in a letter dated February 28, 2024 (Fig. 5) that it had forwarded the case “for further proceedings” to the District Prosecutor’s Office Warsaw-Mokotów.

However, the Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office remained quiet and I was never informed about any actions. The President’s Office also never showed any interest in the case.

3. FINAL REMARKS

 The District Prosecutor’s Office for Warsaw-Mokotów’s acknowledgement that “acting with the aim of restricting sovereignty and independence does not constitute a criminal offence” is shocking and raises objections to the blatant contradiction with the content of Articles 127 and 129 of the Penal Code. With this decision, the District Prosecutor’s Office Warsaw-Mokotów sanctions an act aimed at restricting sovereignty. Both aforementioned articles of the Penal Code provide for such an act a penalty of life or 10 years in prison, which makes it a crime classified as a felony.

The silence of the President’s Office on this matter is also surprising. According to Article 126(2) of the Polish Constitution, “the President of the Republic of Poland shall watch over the observance of the Constitution, safeguard the sovereignty and security of the State, and the inviolability and indivisibility of its territory.” When even the Public Prosecutor’s Office states that we are dealing “with an action to limit sovereignty”, it is completely incomprehensible that the President, who according to the Constitution is the highest representative of the Republic of Poland and the guarantor of the continuity of state power, remains silent. After all, we are not dealing with a common crime, but with a crime committed by persons “authorized to act on behalf of the Republic of Poland in relations with the government of a foreign state or a foreign organisation” (Art. 129. Penal Code).

The refusal to punish the aforementioned representatives of the Republic of Poland acting to its detriment had fatal consequences. Acting “to limit sovereignty”, they stood again for the European Parliament in the elections that took place on June 9, 2024, and two of them, Robert Biedroń and Łukasz Kohut, were re-elected to the EP. The fact that they were not punished with the deprivation of public rights for acting “with the aim of restricting sovereignty” allowed them to stand as candidates, and the voters’ ignorance of whether they had committed the acts specified in the Penal Code allowed them to be elected.

We are currently witnessing further actions by MEPs representing the Republic of Poland, which lead to the loss of sovereignty. The unpunished crime of 2023 has tragic consequences and the same question must be asked again: “What needs to be done to activate the institutions obliged to defend the Republic of Poland?”

Translation J. Czarniecki

Bibliographic references

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2025-0034_PL.pdf

[2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/pl/votes.html?tab=votes

[3] The results of the roll-call votes are available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9- 2023-11-22-RCV_PL.html

[4] Act of 6 June 1997, Penal Code, as amended, Journal of Laws 1997 No. 88, item 553

https://citizengo.org/pl/212524-do-prokuratury

The post A Crime Against the Republic of Poland appeared first on Polonia Institute.

The bribery mafia co-created a mechanism that blocks funds for Poland

The bribery mafia, linked to the Qatari, Moroccan and Russian services, created, or at least co-created, the conditionality mechanism that led to Poland’s money being withheld by the European Union when war broke out in Ukraine. Poland is Ukraine’s main supporter while Germany refuses to help.  This shocking thesis was presented based on incoming reports of corruption in the European Parliament. The shocking findings were presented on Polish TV Republika by a member of the European Parliament Dominik Tarczyński.

Almost daily, new findings come to light in a complex and wide-ranging corruption and espionage scandal in the European Parliament. MP Dominik Tarczyński is collecting materials that may indicate that some of the MEPs involved in the corruption scandal took part in the attacks on Poland in the EP that have been ongoing for the last few years.

In recent days, the Spanish media in a series of publications have become interested in Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, the chairman of the European parliamentary LIBE committee from which most drafts of anti-Polish resolutions originated in recent years. Videos have been released showing the scene where this committee voted on the waiver of visas for Qatari, then adjourned, and the video shows how Eva Kaili and Mark Tarabella – the main characters of the scandal – approached Aguilar and – presumably – gave him instructions. 

The next day, shocking footage was released from the committee led by Mr. Aguilar. He is well-known in Poland as one of the most involved in anti-Polish actions in the European Parliament. It was Lopez Aguilar who asked during a meeting with the Polish opposition what “we can still do”, as he put it “to overthrow the Polish government”, and Radosław Sikorski then drew his attention to “Polish journalists” present in the room (as a warning not to speak publically about this matter) – Dominik Tarczyński explained today on TV Republika.

All materials published by foreign media in connection with the corruption scandal in the European Parliament point to the socialist milieu, one of the most involved in attacks on Poland. Tarczyński pointed out that Francesco Giorgi, the partner of the arrested Eva Kaila, in 2020 announced the mechanism of conditionality, linking the rule of law with financing, as a great success of the socialist faction in the European Parliament. The draft of the conditionality mechanism passed through the LIBE committee headed by the aforementioned Lopez Aguilar. 

In the past, Giorgi was an assistant to Panzeri, a former MEP who admitted to investigators that he was the head of a group organizing corruption. One of those involved in the case is also MEP Mark Tarabella, who is accused of accepting 140,000 euros for the resolution against Algeria. This shows that there were not only pro-Qatari or pro-Moroccan actions but also anti-Algerian actions, there were also anti-state actions being purchased by the outside forces. Hence, it can be assumed that if people took part in attacks on Poland, they took money for these attacks. 

said the Polish MEP.

Dominik Tarczyński pointed out that the resolution on the mechanism of linking the rule of law with financing had a provision that NGOs were to be excluded from this rule. 

This was announced despite the fact that Panzeri’s organizations where Giorgi worked are suspected of money laundering. These organizations announced as a success the resolution that secured funding for the organization, he added. The MEP also drew attention to the Pegasus Investigating Committee, consisting, among others, Eva Kaili, Mark Tarabella, and Maria Arena. 

They fought against the right of the Polish secret services to have mechanisms such as Pegasus thanks to which they themselves were caught and detained.

We must not be naive and look at these facts as merely “Qatargate” or “Moroccogate” – this is “Russiagate.” Strange information appeared after Russia spent 300 million euros on lobbying. Putin’s daughter Got married in Morocco. When we start to wonder where Morocco got this briberry money [referred to in the EP corruption case], all threads will lead to Russia overnight.

Tarczynski said.

The bribery mafia, linked to the Qatari, Moroccan and Russian services, created or at least co-created the conditionality mechanism that led to Poland’s money being blocked when war broke out in Ukraine. Poland is Ukraine’s main supporter, and Germany refuses to help. A bribery mafia puts up a blockade at the back. Can this be summed up? 

There is no other way to sum it up, these are the facts,

he added.

Earlier, Dominik Tarczyński showed documents confirming transfers of huge amounts in a corruption case in the European Parliament. Millions of dollars in suitcases went to former EP vice-president Eva Kaili and her family, as well as to other politicians. What all these people have in common is that they either initiated attacks against Poland or directly wrote (mostly unsubstantiated) reports against Poland.

Recently, the EP held a debate on the corruption scandal, the background of which is lobbying for Qatar and Morocco. A request for a debate was made by several political groups in the EP. The corruption scandal erupted in December 2023 with the arrest of EP vice-president, Greek socialist Eva Kaili, who is accused of taking huge bribes from Qatar. Her lawyer, Michalis Dimitrakopoulus, said in December that the defense had requested that she testify using electronic surveillance, but the prosecution refused this request. As a result, Kaili will remain in pre-trial detention in Belgium until at least the end of January 22.

At the same time, the investigation into her case is ongoing in Greece, where she also faces imprisonment. If Kaili is found guilty in Greece, the sentence handed down by the national judicial authority is likely to be more severe than that in Belgium, where the penalties for this type of crime are lenient – between 3 and 5 years in prison. In her home country, she faces 15 years in prison. In Greece, Kaili is, among others, under the scrutiny of the money laundering office. The investigation into her case is to determine whether she imported undeclared funds from abroad and invested them in Greece, mainly in real estate.

Kaili is not the only negative protagonist of the corruption scandal in the EP. Her family and friends are also involved in the case. Pier Antonio Panzeri, a former Italian MEP, is also in custody. He is the founder of the non-governmental organization “Fight Impunity.” He was also charged in connection with a corruption scandal. Panzeri’s application for release from prison was also postponed until January 26.

MEP Mark Tarabella is vice-chairman of the EP delegation for relations with the Arabian Peninsula. His house was searched by the Belgian police. He suspended his membership in the Socialists and Democrats group. In early January, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, launched an urgent procedure to lift the immunity of two MEPs at the request of the Belgian judicial authorities. It’s about Andrea Cozzolino and Tarabella.

The bribery scandal in the European Parliament is developing. Stay tuned.

The original article in Polish was published here:  https://niezalezna.pl/472331-szokujace-ustalenia-ws-afery-korupcyjnej-w-pe-mafia-lapowkarska-wspoltworzyla-mechanizm-ktory-blokuje-srodki-dla-polski-wideo

The post The bribery mafia in the European Parlament behind blocking funds for Poland appeared first on Polonia Institute.

“No European economy benefits as much from the EU single market as the German economy,”

The post In 2021 Germany contributed to the EU budget €25.1 bn but received €132 bn back! appeared first on Polonia Institute.

The principal goal of our western neighbor at the moment is
the federalization of the EU under its control.

Prof. Wojciech Polak

I don’t know what political scientists are doing at the moment, some of them are probably analyzing geopolitical arrangements in the time of Chancellor Bismarck, but I want to meekly point out that what is happening at the moment in Europe and the world should be the subject of deep analysis, from which some practical conclusions should be drawn (and this is, unfortunately, the hardest thing to do).

We are living at a turning point in world history. What happens in the next few years will probably determine the history of the whole century. Let us put the facts in order, bearing in mind, in particular, the situation of Poland.

Germany’s main objective? Federalization

The European Union is, in fact, already completely controlled by Germany. Our western neighbor’s main objective is to federalize the Union and make it into a single state, formally governed by Brussels but actually from Berlin. The main course of action is to ‘green’ Europe by imposing various and very costly taxes and legal restrictions to reduce CO2 emissions. With this method, Germany wanted to significantly restrict and hamper industrial production and energy generation by other EU countries – including Poland. This would target competition for their goods, which are now becoming increasingly poor in quality (Germany already has a negative foreign trade balance). Berlin’s aim is also to turn Central Europe into an economically underdeveloped colony, providing cheap labor and raw materials. Berlin was aware that the whole operation would lead to a considerable decline in the competitiveness of European goods worldwide. It would impoverish the citizens of the EU and make it difficult for them to function normally (e.g., by imposing electric cars – expensive, unreliable, and unsuitable for further travel). The German planners did not and do not mind. Germany made a deal (probably in the winter of this year) with Russia to realize these intentions.

On the one hand, they agreed to Putin’s occupation of Ukraine, installing a pro-Russian government there and annexing further Ukrainian territories to Russia. On the other hand, Russia promised to send cheap gas to Germany (Nord Stream 2 was also to be launched), on the distribution of which in Europe, Berlin was to make additional money and strengthen its influence. Russian gas was to become the second factor facilitating the federalization of Europe, alongside ecology. Germany counted on the war in Ukraine to last a week at most. They also assumed that there would be some pro forma protests and then, after a few weeks, everything would return to the so-called normal.

However, the implementation of the plan encountered difficulties. The heroic defense of the Ukrainians has lasted almost five months, with the Russians committing horrific acts of terror and genocide. The Germans must therefore join (reluctantly and unwillingly) in the protests against Russian aggression and crimes, albeit with very few weapons being handed over to Ukraine. However, impatient Russians are threatening Berlin with a complete cut-off of gas supplies, which has recently caused an unheard-of panic on the banks of the Spree River.

Poland’s role

Our country plays a vital role in this whole jigsaw. The Germans see the subjugation of Poland and setting it up in a classic neo-colonial role as one of their primary objectives. For them, this would also be tantamount to regaining (in some sense) the territories lost in 1945 that they remember (although they pretend not to remember). Thus, the Germans are striving at all costs to install a government in Poland that would favor them (as Kisiel said: “Guess, my dear, whose government it is to be?”). For Angela Merkel and her successor, the tool for blocking the functioning of Polish industry is the financial sanctions applied to Poland by the Germans through the European Commission. The blocking of our subsidies and COVID loan relief to the tune of €70 billion as punishment for alleged violations of the rule of law is the sole credit of our neighbors from across the Oder River. One of their motives is the fear that such a huge sum could further fuel our economy. What is most outrageous is the fact that now, when Poles are providing such significant assistance to Ukrainian refugees (who number up to 4 million) and are spending huge sums of money on this, Germany (under the guise of the European Union, of course) is blocking our subsidies and making us pay compensation for the unfulfilled and at the same time unlawful and absurd decisions of the CJEU. I am already leaving aside the fact that we have not been given any financial support in our extensive and costly aid operations for Ukrainian refugees. After all, it would be naïve to expect anything from the world’s most stingy and greedy country, which is precisely what Germany is.

These ‘milestones’ and empty promises by Ursula von der Leyen only serve to pull the wool over our eyes. You can no longer believe a word she says. After all, she is not following orders from EU bodies but simply from the German Federal Government, albeit under the guise of the European Commission. Compliance with the demands of this European Commission (e.g., regarding the abolition of the Disciplinary Chamber of Poland’s Supreme Court) only results in more bold demands. One can guess that further demands such as allowing homosexual marriages, adopting children by homosexuals, including the ‘non-binary’ gender option in identity cards, etc., will soon follow.

Berlin’s anti-Polish actions

I have been saying for many months now that Poland will not get this money. There have been so many anti-Polish moves by Berlin recently that one could write a substantial book about them. One should consider whether to simply accept that we now have two enemies: Russia and Germany. The fact that the German state is our enemy (despite our joint membership in the EU and NATO) has unfortunately not yet reached the consciousness of most Poles. Berlin would like to carry out a vassalization of Poland using the European Commission, the CJEU, and other EU structures. These are very effective tools in the hands of today’s exasperated successors of Friedrich II and Bismarck. The questions then arise: is it really worthwhile for us to remain in the EU? When some absurd financial penalties are being imposed on us when we are being deprived of money owed to us (EUR 70 billion is almost three-quarters of Poland’s annual budget) when we are being forced to pay some macabre taxes for CO2 emissions when our sovereignty is being undermined in the area of the judicial system and dozens of other matters. And when all this serves to build up Germany’s domination over us, should we continue to pretend that being part of the Union benefits us? Is it not better to thank the Germans and their adherents and go our own way? The answer is obvious. Indeed, choosing freedom will cost us a lot and cause us considerable political perturbations, but there is no other choice.

When Russia blocked the gas supply to Poland in April this year, not a single European country declared itself willing to help us. Germany, of course, kept its mouth shut. Today, when Germany is threatened with a gas shortage due to Putin’s cunning, the European Commission calls for all countries, including Poland, to be compulsorily obliged to supply gas to Germany. We should give the Eurocrats a short answer to this proclamation: leave us alone and get on with straightening bananas (to comply with EU standards) or picking asparagus (in Germany). We can do without you!

Translated from the original Polish:

https://wpolityce.pl/polityka/607009-niemcy-sa-po-prostu-wrogiem-polski?fbclid=IwAR2c37hpoZD88O1Yi8uqLiVitS0XUGkhzyEDK0Pb77Um2142TJY0rcc86jg

The post The main goal of Germany is the federalization of the EU under its leadership appeared first on Polonia Institute.

Hon. Piotr Andrzejewski: “The current aim of the EU bodies is the gradual colonization of Poland.”

“No branch of the government in Poland is safe from having its existence and competence undermined by EU bodies. None. This interference nullifies the scope of the subjectivity of the law and the Polish state,” says in an interview with the wPolityce.pl portal – Piotr Łukasz Andrzejewski, attorney and Vice-chairman of Poland’s State Tribunal.

wPolityce.pl: The European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Poland over two rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal on the primacy of the Polish Constitution over EU law. It seems that this is an attack not only on the Polish Constitutional Tribunal but – first and foremost – on the Constitution itself, as the Constitutional Tribunal is not a source of law. How do you assess this?

Piotr Łukasz Andrzejewski: The Constitutional Tribunal (TK) is a body of the Polish state securing by its rulings the functioning of the hierarchical structure of the sources of law in Poland. The scope of international treaty law binding on Poland derives exclusively from its jurisprudence. The TK, in its jurisprudence, is guided by the assessment of the compliance of other sources of binding law with the benchmarks of the Polish Constitution. This system under the control of the Polish TK shapes the non-contradictory, complementary and complete nature of law in Poland. The rule of law is the compliance of this system with the Polish Constitution. Based on the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union is pushing through a procedure for the incompatibility of the activities of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal with the formal, undefined directional norms of so-called EU law. It has long used a procedure to formulate allegations against Poland of violations of the rule of law based on Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty, which states that: “the European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one-third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.”

Article 2 refers, in a manner that needs to be clarified, to the observance of values such as freedom, democracy, equality, respect for human rights, tolerance, justice, and solidarity as slogans commonly used in the democratic systems of European states.

The procedure that has been initiated may be followed when “on a reasoned proposal by one-third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four-fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2.”

This procedure has been going on for some years now based on ever-new concretizations of the nature of the interpretation imposed on the enigmatic and undefined concepts to which it refers.

This method of casuistically specifying requirements according to the political demand for the EU to subjugate the functioning of the bodies of a Member State of the Union to itself while keeping things in proportion may be comparable to the use of the slogan of the “struggle for peace” by the USSR in its ideological struggle against the democratic countries of the West.

Article 7, point 2 of the Treaty, then provides for the possibility to declare that a Member State, in this case, Poland or Hungary, is in serious and persistent breach of the enigmatic and indefinite values listed in Article 2 of the Treaty.

Then we have the next stage (point 2, Art. 7.) “The European Council, acting in unanimity…” and here is where it hurts the most because this unanimity cannot be achieved so far because there are two countries – Hungary and Poland – that are preventing this procedure from being limited to obtaining the full consensus of all members of the European Union. The European Council, unanimously, at the request of a third of the Member States or the EC, and with the EP’s consent, can therefore conclude, after calling on a Member State to submit its observations, that there has been a serious and persistent breach by that Member State of “…the values referred to in Article 2.”

Such a conclusion requires unanimity of all EU members, which, given the position of Poland and Hungary, cannot currently be achieved. In this state of affairs, the procedure itself can serve to arbitrarily apply another provision of the Treaty, which, through the CJEU, can conclude that a Member State is not complying with the obligation imposed on it by the Treaty and, through the CJEU’s jurisprudence at the unilateral discretion of this EU body, can impose significant financial penalties deducted from the funds allocated to the Member State.

This practice is being implemented against Poland because the Polish state has not conferred decision-making or adjudicatory powers to EU bodies. According to the Polish Constitution, this character of diktat violates the rule of law not in Poland, but in the functioning of the European Union.

The regulation supplementing the Lisbon Treaties regarding the conditioning of the spending of funds allocated to a Member State under the European Union Recovery Instrument (NGEU) and the raising of its budgetary resources by the EU from borrowing and the imposition of additional taxes on citizens of EU Member States, to the extent that Poland has agreed to a procedure for waiving unanimity in the application of this procedure, is currently being interpreted in a way that violates the agreement concluded in December 2020 between Poland and the other members of the European Union in the European Council.

The regulation conditioning the disbursement of allocated sums on compliance with the rule of law, according to the agreement, was intended to deal solely with protecting how funds allocated to a member country under the Reconstruction Fund (NGEU) were spent against corruption, embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion for purposes other than those in the approved plan.

This international agreement, which modifies treaty obligations, is currently being challenged on its content and is being unjustifiably extended by EU bodies. This constitutes a breach of the treaty agreement.

From what you have said, I infer that the European Commission’s game is to bring about, as a result of this action, the suspension of Poland’s vote in the European Council and thus make it possible to revise the treaties without the Polish side. Is this the case?

Yes. There is an aggressive, frontal attack on Poland and Hungary. Just as from the east, Putin’s Russia is questioning the sovereignty and subjectivity of Ukraine, so from the west, the European Union, under the dictates of Berlin and Brussels, is applying procedures to the unallocated competencies of the Polish state for the practical limitation of the sovereignty and independence of the Polish state and its people.

To what extent, in your opinion, does this legal juggling act have a chance of success?

Preliminarily, a particular difference was outlined in treating and defining the content of Poland’s obligations to the EU and the Union’s obligations to Poland in Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki’s speech to the EP in the fall of 2021. Not only that, it was followed by letters of the so-called “aide-mémoire” of the Prime Minister of the Polish government to the leaders of all EU member states, but this was completely ignored in the further actions of the EU bodies. Moreover, this speech by Mateusz Morawiecki is not followed up due to restrained political decisions, nor is it enforced by international politics.

What is this justified by?

By looking for any pretext to “starve” Poland by not transferring the funds due to it. With this practice of legal invasion, in my opinion, the consequences of what Mateusz Morawiecki stated in his letter to EU leaders should continue. The EP pretended not to hear it, that it doesn’t exist, and that Poland doesn’t count for the EU as an entity whose treatment is equivalent to other EU members, such as Germany. Recall that concerning Germany, with a similar ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe to the case law of the Polish Constitutional Court, such an aggressive Article 7 procedure was not applied, recognizing the inviolability of respect for the constitutional identity of an EU Member State. As for Poland, different principles are applied in the absence of a uniform benchmark in this regard.

The media exaggerates the conflict between the position of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro when it comes to assessing the current situation in this case. Does this conflict really exist?

There is no contradiction between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice in assessing the illegality of the EU bodies’ actions against Poland.

The current goal of the EU bodies’ actions is the gradual colonization of Poland through the proliferation of more and more directives, recommendations, or “milestones.” We are dealing not only with discrimination but with an attempt to impose systemic norms that harm the independence and sovereignty of the Polish state.

It is worth quoting what Mateusz Morawiecki wrote in a letter to EU leaders, in which the autonomy of functioning is indirectly mentioned. The head of the government writes:

The principle of Granting authority, derived from Articles 4 and 5 of the EU Treaty, is the supreme principle of the Union. It means that the powers of the EU bodies extend only to those matters that we have entrusted to them in the Treaties. Attempts to expand these competencies cannot be accepted: for any such action is ultra vires, intrinsically contrary to the treaty principle of the rule of law. No body of the European Union can take any action that it is not authorized to take in the Treaties.” Prime Minister Morawiecki says that the consequence of rulings by national judicial bodies has always been that individual CJEU rulings as ultra vires are not binding on a particular Member State. This means that, as Morawiecki points out, “the Polish Constitutional Court, therefore, does nothing today that courts and tribunals in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Romania, the Czech Republic or other EU countries have not already done in the past.

Uninformed people are still distracted by this supposed conflict between Mateusz Morawiecki and Zbigniew Ziobro, which is simply a different style of operation.

Prescribed therapy in the situation of a western invasion, which is closer, and eastern, physical aggression, which is likely, looks completely different.

Mateusz Morawiecki has not given the EU the power to control the rule of law in Poland in all areas, including the judiciary, except for how the funds allocated to Poland are spent. Conditioning the availability of funds allocated to Poland on claims of compliance with the so-called “rule of law” has not been granted by the Polish state either in the treaties or in the agreement on the application of the conditionality (compliance with the rule of law) mechanism. Compliance with the rule of law, to the extent recognized by Poland, was and is supposed to concern only how the funds granted to it are implemented as to their purpose, scope, and compliance with the purposes for which the funds were granted.

Poland’s agreement to waive the principle of unanimity in the implementation of control over the disbursement of post-COVID funds granted, having the nature of an international agreement, was treated as a “Trojan horse” for blackmailing Poland with the withholding of payments of funds given to it in the event of non-compliance with ever-new directives, recommendations, and orders of the EU ultra vires (to the extent not granted by Poland to the bodies of the Union). The current positions of the European Commission are an abusive interpretation that expands the content of the contractually concluded agreement on applying the conditionality mechanism.

It seems – please correct me if I’m wrong – that the whole story with judges, with the European Commission interfering with the courts’ composition and sentences, may lead to further consequences, even to the undermining of the last elections in Poland. Because why wouldn’t it?

This practice indicates that no level of authority in Poland is safe from undermining its existence and competence by EU bodies. None. This interference nullifies the right of Poland to promulgate the laws and the sovereignty of the Polish state.

Thank you.

Interviewed by Anna Wiejak

For the Polish original see: https://wpolityce.pl/polityka/606969-andrzejewski-celem-ue-jest-stopniowa-kolonizacja-polski

The post The current aim of the EU bodies is the gradual colonization of Poland appeared first on Polonia Institute.