La Pologne refuse l'euro ! Pourquoi nous le cache-t-on ?

My fellow citizens, I would like to speak to you today—today, that is July 30, 2026—about a report from Warsaw that arrived the day before yesterday, stating that the Polish Prime Minister, Mr. Donald Tusk, has informed his country, his fellow citizens, and the entire world that Poland is once again postponing its adoption of the European currency, the euro. To ensure you truly understand the importance of this subject that no one is talking about, especially in light of the 2027 presidential election, the question of the euro is being completely ignored, even though it is one of the most fundamental issues regarding the future of our country. That is why I am going to talk to you about this. And so that you fully understand, I must take a brief look back to ensure that things are perfectly clear in your minds. Until 1992, there were 12 member states of the European Economic Community. In mid-December 1991, these 12 states met in Maastricht, a city located in the southeast of the Netherlands. There was a meeting of heads of state and government in Maastricht on December 9 and 10, 1991, where they agreed on the final version of this Maastricht Treaty. The formal signing of the treaty by the plenipotentiaries—generally the head of state or government and the minister of foreign affairs—took place on February 7, 1992, also in Maastricht. This Maastricht Treaty notably planned to transform the European Economic Community into a European Union, that is to say, a federal Europe by another name; it planned to create a common foreign and security policy, which became the EU's foreign and defense policy; and it also planned for a monetary union that was to lead to the creation of a common currency to be called the Ecu, which, in the end, at the Germans' request, was named the euro. The Maastricht Treaty having been formally signed by the governments on February 7, 1992, it was then necessary to proceed with ratifications, which could take place either by referendum or by a vote in parliament. The first country among the 12 that prepared for ratification was Denmark. A referendum was held on June 2, 1992, and to the general surprise and the astonishment of many observers, the Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty with a slim majority of 50.7% of the vote; however, they did reject it, which obviously caused general disturbance and consternation, because the first of the 12 that was supposed to ratify it started by not doing so. Nevertheless, the procedure continued, but the 12 agreed that the problem of Denmark would have to be resolved. We then arrived in France, where the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty took place on September 20, 1992, where our compatriots ratified it under incredible conditions of propaganda, since we know that the "Yes" supporters took up about 80% of the airtime on television. The French ratified it as well, but by a razor-thin margin of 51% of the vote; they ratified the Maastricht Treaty. All of the countries in what was the European Economic Community ratified it before December 31, and it turned out that the problem of Denmark had to be resolved. And so, in the meantime, it had been decided that the Danes would vote again, since you know that the European construction, being a fundamentally tyrannical and totalitarian construction, does not allow for the possibility of disagreement. So if a people votes no, it is obviously because they made a mistake, were deceived, or were manipulated by demagogues, and so on. So they will have to be made to vote and vote again until they follow through, until they vote yes. So the Danes were asked to hold a new referendum, but the government in Copenhagen began to explain that it could not propose the exact same text to its compatriots again. The Danish government argued that if the Danish people had rejected the Maastricht Treaty, it was because the Danes were very attached to the Danish national currency, which is the Danish krone. And so an exception was made, which was defined by a summit of heads of state and government. It was decided, as an exception to this treaty, that Denmark would be exempted from adopting the euro. To be precise, there was another country that had, at the time of the negotiations, already obtained the same exemption: it was the United Kingdom, since I remind you that at the time the United Kingdom was part of the 12, and the United Kingdom had negotiated it before any ratification, having requested the exemption. Just as a side note, but it matters for what followed. The other member states of what was to become the European Union could have refused this exemption. France could very well have said to the United Kingdom and Denmark, "It is out of the question for you to have this exemption; otherwise, I am not going along with this scheme, I do not agree." But there are such powerful forces acting upon the governments of Western countries, and particularly upon the French government. At the time, we were with François Mitterrand, and do you know who his special advisor was? It was Jacques Attali who worked enormously behind the scenes. He explained it himself, so that France would adopt this currency. First of all, all those of whom I had the privilege to be a part held the pen to write the first versions of the Maastricht Treaty. We made sure to ensure that leaving would not be possible. We carefully forgot to write the article that allows for an exit. It's perhaps not very democratic, obviously, but it was a great guarantee to make things more difficult to force us to move forward. So we made François Mitterrand understand that he could not oppose giving these exemptions to the United Kingdom and Denmark because otherwise the matter would get stuck. The Danes, once they knew they were going to keep the Danish krone, well, they voted yes in the second referendum and thus entered the Maastricht Treaty. To summarize, therefore, on January 1, 1993, all the states of the European Economic Community had ratified the Maastricht Treaty, two of which, the United Kingdom and Denmark, had obtained an exemption that they would not enter the common currency. The euro therefore gradually came into force, not right away since there was a convergence policy that lasted quite a long time, since in fact the Maastricht Treaty entered into force on January 1, 1993, and it was July 1, 1997. It had been planned like that in the treaty and it was postponed by 2 years to July 1, 1999, which is to say, more than 6 years after the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, the euro was created for interbank exchanges. And it was on January 1, 2002, that the euro appeared in the form of coins and banknotes for everyone. And it was from January 1, 2002, that all prices were transformed from francs to euros, deutschmarks to euros, from the Italian lira to euros, and so on. Following this period, we had in 1995 the accession of three new states that were not in the European Economic Communities and which brought the number of states from 12 to 15. The three new states being Austria, Sweden, and Finland. And when these three countries joined the European Union and entered the European Union in 1995, they were forced to ratify the existing treaties and therefore they were forced, these three countries—Finland, Austria, and Sweden—to accept the principle of the euro. Except that Sweden, while having ratified the Maastricht Treaty, asked and said that from a political point of view, it could not move to the adoption of the euro without asking for the formal authorization of the Swedish people. And so, they requested permission to wait a little while for public opinion to evolve, since the Swedish government, the government in Stockholm, knew that the Swedes were in the same state of mind as the Danish people; that is to say, they wanted to keep the Swedish krona just as the Danes had kept the Danish krone. Moreover, the Swedes, the Swedish government, had tried to obtain the same exemptio

citizens, and the entire world that Poland is once again postponing its adoption of the European currency, the euro. To ensure you truly understand the importance of this subject that no one is talking about, especially in light of the 2027 presidential election

, the question of the euro is being completely ignored, even though it is one of the most fundamental issues regarding the future of our country.

That is why I am going to talk to you about this. And so that you fully understand, I must take a brief look back to ensure that things are perfectly clear in your minds. Until 1992, there were 12 member states of

the European Economic Community. In mid-December 1991, these 12 states met in Maastricht, a city located in the southeast of the Netherlands. There was a meeting of heads of state and government in Maastricht on December 9 and 10, 1991, where they agreed on the

final version of this Maastricht Treaty . The formal signing of the treaty by the plenipotentiaries—generally the head of state or government and the minister of foreign affairs—took place on February 7, 1992, also in Maastricht. This Maastricht Treaty notably planned to transform the

European Economic Community into a European Union, that is to say, a federal Europe by another name; it planned to create a common foreign and security policy, which became the EU's foreign and defense policy; and it also planned for a monetary union that was

to lead to the creation of a common currency to be called the Ecu, which, in the end, at the Germans 'request, was named the euro. The Maastricht Treaty having been formally signed by the governments on February 7, 1992, it

was then necessary to proceed with ratifications, which could take place either by referendum or by a vote in parliament. The first country among the 12 that prepared for ratification was Denmark. A referendum was held on June 2, 1992, and to the general surprise

and the astonishment of many observers, the Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty with a slim majority of 50.7%of the vote; however, they did reject it, which obviously caused general disturbance and consternation, because the first of the 12 that was supposed

to ratify it started by not doing so. Nevertheless, the procedure continued, but the 12 agreed that the problem of Denmark would have to be resolved. We then arrived in France, where the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty took place on September 20, 1992, where

our compatriots ratified it under incredible conditions of propaganda, since we know that the "Yes" supporters took up about 80%of the airtime on television. The French ratified it as well, but by a razor-thin margin of 51% of the vote; they ratified the

Maastricht Treaty. All of the countries in what was the European Economic Community ratified it before December 31, and it turned out that the problem of Denmark had to be resolved. And so, in the meantime, it had been decided

that the Danes would vote again, since you know that the European construction , being a fundamentally tyrannical and totalitarian construction......does not allow for the possibility of disagreement. So if a people votes no, it is obviously because they made a

mistake, were deceived, or were manipulated by demagogues, and so on. So they will have to be made to vote and vote again until they follow through, until they vote. Yes. So the Danes were asked to hold a new

referendum, but the government in Copenhagen began to explain that it could not propose the exact same text to its compatriots again. The Danish government argued that if the Danish people had rejected the Maastricht Treaty, it was because the Danes were

very attached to the Danish national currency, which is the Danish krone. And so an exception was made, which was defined by a summit of heads of state and government. It was decided, as an exception to this treaty, that Denmark

would be exempted from adopting the euro. To be precise, there was another country that had, at the time of the negotiations, already obtained the same exemption: it was the United Kingdom, since I remind you that at the time the

United Kingdom was part of the 12, and the United Kingdom had negotiated it before any ratification, having requested the exemption. Just as a side note, but it matters for what followed.

The other member states of what was to become the European Union could have refused this exemption. France could very well have said to the United Kingdom and Denmark, "It is out of the question for you to have this exemption

; otherwise, I am not going along with this scheme, I do not agree." But there are such powerful forces acting upon the governments of Western countries, and particularly upon the French government. At the time, we were with François Mitterrand, and do you know

who his special advisor was? It was Jacques Attali who worked enormously behind the scenes. He explained it himself, so that France would adopt this currency.

First of all, all those of whom I had the privilege to be a part held the pen to write the first versions of the Maastricht Treaty. We made sure to ensure that leaving would not be possible. We carefully forgot to write

the article that allows for an exit. It's perhaps not very democratic, obviously, but it was a great guarantee to make things more difficult to force us to move forward.

So we made François Mitterrand understand that he could not oppose giving these exemptions to the United Kingdom and Denmark because otherwise the matter would get stuck. The Danes, once they knew they were going to keep the Danish krone, well, they voted yes

in the second referendum and thus entered the Maastricht Treaty. To summarize, therefore, on January 1, 1993, all the states of the European Economic Community had ratified the Maastricht Treaty, two of which, the United Kingdom and Denmark, had obtained an exemption that they would

not enter the common currency. The euro therefore gradually came into force, not right away since there was a convergence policy that lasted quite a long time, since in fact the Maastricht Treaty entered into force on January 1, 1993, and it was July 1, 1997. It had

been planned like that in the treaty and it was postponed by 2 years to July 1, 1999, which is to say, more than 6 years after the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, the euro was created for interbank exchanges. And it was on

January 1, 2002, that the euro appeared in the form of coins and banknotes for everyone. And it was from January 1, 2002, that all prices were transformed from francs to euros, deutschmarks to euros, from the Italian lira to euros,

and so on. Following this period, we had in 1995 the accession of three new states that were not in the European Economic Communities and which brought the number of states from 12 to 15. The three new states being Austria, Sweden,

and Finland. And when these three countries joined the European Union and entered the European Union in 1995, they were forced to ratify the existing treaties and therefore they were forced , these three countries—Finland, Austria, and Sweden—to accept the

principle of the euro. Except that Sweden, while having ratified the Maastricht Treaty, asked and said that from a political point of view, it could not move to the adoption of the euro without asking for the formal authorization of the Swedish people.

And so, they requested permission to wait a little while for public opinion to evolve, since the Swedish government , the government in Stockholm, knew that the Swedes were in the same state of mind as the Danish people; that is

to say, they wanted to keep the Swedish krona just as the Danes had kept the Danish krone. Moreover, the Swedes, the Swedish government, had tried to obtain the same exemption as the Danes. But at the time, it had been decided that it

was out of the question, that we had made one exemption, um, for, um, well two exemptions: one for the United Kingdom because the British are British , and the second for Denmark, that we could not multiply the exemptions. When

the euro came into force for interbank exchanges on July 1st, 1999, well, all the states entered the euro, but not Sweden, since Sweden said: "We will do it a little later, let us hold a referendum when the time comes." When

on January 1st, 2002, euros in the form of coins and banknotes arrived in the wallets of the average person and all prices changed, the same thing happened ; that is to say that out of the 15 states of the European Union at the

time, there were 12 where this change occurred and there were three where it did not happen. The United Kingdom and Denmark kept their national currency, and then Sweden also kept its national currency, even though Sweden said, " Don't worry, don't worry, we'll join,

we'll do it soon too." You have to understand that the Stockholm government thought that, from the moment the Swedes saw that in Finland, which is the country across the way if I dare say, that in Germany, which is

the country at the south of the, of the beginning of the Baltic Sea, that the Swedes would say, "Well, we'll do like everyone else, we'll adopt the euro." The Swedes therefore organized a referendum some time later, on September 14, 2003, to ask the Swedish

people: do you agree to adopt the euro? Everyone thought it would go very well.

And then, wham—I refer you to a video I made on the subject—the Swedes voted no. So that Sweden finds itself —and is still in the same situation now, by the way—that is to say, it has been 23 years since these events.

Sweden is still legally required to join the euro, but it is dealing with a resistant population. And, well, with 57%of the vote against it, by the way.

And the Swedes, like the Danes, are democratic peoples, much more democratic than in France. Because when the French vote "no," as in 2005, their vote is absolutely ignored. The Swedes said, "Well, we'll put it off until later." Then came the major

enlargements, notably in 2004, when we went from 15 member states to 25 with the entry of 10 new states into the European Union, including Eastern European countries plus Cyprus and Malta. When I say Eastern countries, I mean Poland, the Baltic states, the

Czech Republic, Hungary, and so on. So, we went to 25 states in 2004, and then three years later, in 2007, we added two more with the entry of Bulgaria and Romania, which made 27. And then in 2013, we went from 27 to 28 with the

entry of Croatia. And then, uh, in 2020 , we went from 28 to 27 with Brexit; the referendum on Brexit took place in 2016, but the United Kingdom formally left the European Union in 2020. So that today, we are 27 states. Of these

27 states, all the new entrants found themselves in the same situation that I described earlier for Austria, Finland, and Sweden. That is to say, they joined , they adhered to the European Union, signed and ratified treaties, and were

legally committed to adopting the European currency. The problem that arose for these Eastern countries was the same as the one that arose for Sweden. Meaning, these countries joined the European Union with the justified hope that they would get lots of money,

lots of subsidies from so-called European funds, essentially paid for by Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom until the UK left.

So that, that appealed to the populations. They were told, "We're going to get lots of money." But obviously, it’s rare for people to be angry when they are told they will get lots of money. However, the fact that

they were going to change their currency had been somewhat hidden from the people. And then, when the obstacle appeared, suddenly the governments realized it was much more complicated than it seemed. So that, among those— we went from 15 to 27, excluding the

United Kingdom now. And so, with these 12 new states that arrived up until 2013, it turned out that within these states, there were some where the population accepted joining the euro without too much trouble. This was the case, for example, with Malta or

Slovakia. Uh, and then there are others , on the other hand, where the population did not agree at all.

Because these are peoples—some of these peoples are very jealous of their national independence, very jealous of keeping their currency, because they are peoples who have thought about it, intelligent peoples who know that it is not trivial to no longer have a

national currency, that, inevitably, a currency is a power that you give away to someone, you don't know who, in the end. And so it happened among these new states that entered the European Union, it turned out that there were a certain

number whose population refused to join the euro. Which states are these? States that have a long tradition of national independence, starting with Hungary. Hungary, which is a people, a Magyar people, descendants of, well, who are very particular, right, who

have a specific language, Hungarian, which is called Magyar, which is linked to the Ural-Altaic languages, which is a very particular language and which showed, moreover, when it was attached to the Eastern countries under the tutelage of the USSR within the

framework of the Warsaw Pact, well, it gave Moscow a hard time. Remember the attempted revolution in Budapest in 1956. The second country that is very jealous of its national independence is Czechia, the Czech Republic, since it is a country that has its own language,

which is a bit embedded within the Germanic countries, but which has proven itself, notably because it is in Prague, with the Defenestration of Prague in 1618, which started the Thirty Years' War when envoys of the Holy Roman Empire were thrown out of

the window of Hradčany Castle in Prague. And the Czechs similarly gave the USSR a hard time with the Prague Spring in 1968. And the third country particularly jealous of its sovereignty and its national independence is, well, Poland. Poland, which has a

particularity. It is a country that has remained extremely Catholic. It is a bit of a Catholic isolate surrounded by Protestant countries. A country that also gave the Soviet bloc a hard time, and how, especially from the moment of

the election of John Paul II, Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, to the throne of Saint Peter in 1978; and with Pope John Paul II, who gave, shortly thereafter, the impetus for the Solidarity union revolution, and, step by step, the beginning of the disintegration of the

socialist bloc. I mention this because it is important to understand the history well. It happens that the three countries I just mentioned, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, are also three countries that have so far refused the euro. Hungary even wrote it

into its Constitution, stating that the national currency of Hungary is the forint, meaning the Hungarian currency.

The Czech Republic refused to adopt the euro, whereas Slovakia, which had been attached after the First World War— creating an artificial country called Czechoslovakia—did otherwise. The Slovak tradition, the Slovak people, are not the same as the Czechs. And the

Slovaks easily accepted the euro, while the Czechs have totally refused it. The Czech Republic refused the euro, and finally Poland—the essential subject of this video—has put off adopting the euro because the adoption was not automatic. In fact, one had to meet a

certain number of economic and financial criteria. This allowed the newly joined countries of the European Union to maintain a rather easy double discourse, saying, "Yes, yes, don't worry.""We will adopt the euro when the time comes, but you understand that for

now, we can't because the macroeconomic data prevents us, but we will get there soon." Since these enlargements, we have found ourselves in a situation that still persists, where in fact, contrary to what many of our compatriots think, the euro is not the

currency of the entire European Union. Today, as I speak, out of the 27 member states of the European Union, 21 have adopted the euro. There are six that have not adopted the euro. I have told you almost all of them. There is

Denmark, there is Sweden. Denmark, as I told you, goes back to 1992, and Sweden with its 2003 referendum. There is the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, which have for now refused it and have postponed it to a later date. And

finally, there is Romania, since Romania and Bulgaria were among the last to join, and Romania has been judged by European bodies and by the authorities in Bucharest. Furthermore, there is also a certain irredentism among the Romanian people. One must not

confuse the Bulgarians and the Romanians. For example, Romanians have a Latin language. Romania, Romania, it actually comes from Rome. It is a country that was Dacia, which was conquered by Emperor Trajan in the 2nd century AD. Whereas the Bulgarians are

a Slavized people who use the Cyrillic alphabet and are an Orthodox people. While the Romanians are Orthodox but have a language that is linked to the Romance languages. Moreover, if you hear people speaking Romanian or if you read a text in Romanian, you will find

that there are a number of words that resemble French or Italian a bit. So those are the six countries that have refused for now, or have not yet accepted, or have dragged their feet on joining the euro. Now we come to Poland

. Poland is the most important of these six states. It is a significant country in terms of geostrategy, size, surface area, population, but also in terms of the economy and also its historical, cultural, and civilizational tradition, with the Polish language, which is a

language very much its own. So it is the most important country of all these nations that have not yet joined the euro. In 2008, the Polish prime minister was Donald Tusk. And when he came to power in 2007, European

institutions said, "Well, you've been in since 2004, it's been three years, perhaps you should think about joining the euro." And in 2008, Donald Tusk, who was—and still is—very pro-European in the sense of submission to the American empire, Donald Tusk

said in 2008, letting it be known, "Yes , yes, don't worry, Poland will join the euro before the end of 2012," thus keeping his promise and explaining to European leaders that Poland would honor its commitments. So, a consensual

, pro-European approach, very different from the approach adopted by Viktor Orbán in Hungary, for example, who had it written into the Hungarian constitution that the forint is the Hungarian national currency, which is a problem with regard to European

treaties. So some of you might ask, " But how is it that they can trample on and flout European treaties without any consequences?" The answer is that it's a very complicated subject, and as I said earlier, European institutions

both want all states to join the euro, but under certain macroeconomic conditions. They don't want to completely destabilize the economies of the countries in question since, as they are poorer than the average of other countries, adopting the euro

means forcing them to adopt a currency that is too expensive, whose exchange rates are too high on international markets, and are therefore. So that risks plunging those states into recession and poverty. So the European Commission and the European Central

Bank are trying a sort of controlled drift, saying, "Well, you can wait a little bit," because they want them to join, but not too quickly. Which is exactly what the states in question are banking on. So, Donald Tusk, when

Poland joined the European Union, it is estimated that its average income was about 40%of the income of the other countries, the rich countries of the European Union. In any case, its GDP was 40%, representing 40%of France's, 40%in purchasing power parity. So

Donald Tusk says Poland will join in 2012. Except that, well, a small problem arose that wasn't exactly in the plan. Starting in late 2008, and throughout 2009 and the following years , the crisis in Greece developed, the financial crisis in Greece with giant

trade deficits and exponentially growing public debt. And, in fact, this financial crisis in Greece—and all economists who look at it closely understand—comes from the fact that Greece, which was much poorer, adopted the euro when it wasn't in a position

to have a currency that was too expensive relative to the competitiveness of its economy.

Incidentally, we later learned that it was Goldman Sachs International that had advised the Greek government and had advised the Athens government to falsify a certain number of its own economic data so that Goldman Sachs could tell the European Commission that

Greece was ready to join the euro. In the meantime, the Troika meets with the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, and the European Central Bank—the three financial institutions that arrive in Greece, realize that the situation is catastrophic, and impose a drastic

remedy on Greece, from which it has still not recovered, to try to limit the debt explosion. I am not going to talk to you here about the crisis in Greece; that would be a bit off-topic.

But what is on-topic is that these draconian measures which were imposed on Greece, and which are quite likely to be imposed on France in the next two years as we get closer and closer to the Greek scenario. These measures have

sown consternation in a certain number of European countries. In Greece, in particular, a whole series of assets, companies, and public institutions of the national heritage have been sold off to banking consortiums. The national lottery, the railways, a whole

series of ports on all the Greek islands. There was the equivalent of the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, the motorways; in short, it was a carnage where everything had to be sold to banks. And incidentally, these draconian measures which were

imposed from 2009-2010 will last until 2018 and will continue even despite the rise to power of the far-left Syriza and Mr. Tsipras, who becomes the new Greek prime minister, the equivalent of Mélenchon. Mr. Tsipras surrounded himself with a man named Mr. Yanis

Varoufakis, his finance minister. Who believes that we absolutely must leave the euro. Mrs. Merkel's Germany says Greece must leave the euro, it is no longer possible. Except that it is not provided for in the treaties that a country can leave the euro. The only

way to leave the euro is to leave the European Union at the same time. There are no procedures that allow for leaving the euro. And then, fundamentally, whatever Mrs. Merkel might say, or whatever a certain number of economists might say, or whatever

the Greek finance minister might say, well, the oligarchy that supports all of this, that steers all of this from afar, said it was out of the question for Greece to leave the euro, because there would be a domino effect and the

entire European structure would risk falling apart. So, they forced the Greeks to stay in the euro. All the more so since Tsipras, the equivalent of Mélenchon, who held the same speeches as Mélenchon does today, had said that in any case he would remain

in the European Union. So Tsipras was trapped himself by the fact that he had campaigned saying he would remain in the European Union but that he would change everything. What Mélenchon is doing, and Tsipras was backed into a

corner, he had to stay in the European Union, he had to stay in the euro, and so he had no choice. It means that his finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, was forced to resign, was told to go look elsewhere, and that Tsipras, betraying

180 degrees the promises he had made to his electorate, was forced to adopt even stricter measures and, notably, to participate in the privatization of a whole series of public establishments.

It is, after all, unimaginable coming from a far-left government. That is exactly what would happen, by the way, if the French elected Mélenchon in 2027; we would witness the same situation. Exactly. No, despite what all those watching me who will say, "No

, no, no, that's not true about Mélenchon," might think. No, Mélenchon will bow to the oligarchy, just as he bowed in 2017 to get Macron elected, and as he bowed in 2022 to get Macron elected. The result of all this

is that these measures were terrible. Not only was Greek heritage sold off wholesale, but there were also measures like, for example, the sale of a certain number of Ionian islands. I believe it was to the Emir of Qatar.

But also, they cut deep into pensions. What happened in Greece was the same little tune we hear today in France. We must cut pensions. I even see YouTubers who are 25 years old saying, "It's a scandal, we must cut pensions."

Obviously, when you are 25, you don't say exactly the same thing as when you are 65 and you have contributed for 40 years of your life to have a pension.

Well, what happened in Greece is that pensions were halved, and that caused dreadful human tragedies, with a suicide rate among retirees that doubled. I would point out, by the way, because we will have to talk about it during this 2027 campaign, that for all

those who want to say "no" to pensions, we will tell them about what happened in Greece and the explosion of suicides and the extreme poverty of a whole series of Greek retirees. Be that as it may, this information was scrutinized

by the Polish people, and the Polish people, who already did not want to join the euro, wanted to join it even less. And Donald Tusk was forced to eat his words. He had promised that Poland would enter before the end of 2012.

Well, he didn't do anything of the sort . He was forced to postpone his promise , which did not bring him luck. He had become very unpopular in the meantime, the wear and tear of power, and so he

was defeated in the legislative elections. And we saw the rise to power of a coalition centered around the party called PiS—PiS meaning Law and Justice—which is classified as right-wing, or even far-right, a conservative party with its allies, which is a Eurosceptic party, and this

coalition was in power from 2015 right up until 2023. During this 8-year period, there were three prime ministers, two women who didn't stay long, each for about a year. And then Prime Minister Morawiecki, who is the one who stayed the longest. Obviously,

as it was the product of a right-wing and Euro-critical far-right coalition that didn't want the euro at any price, they did not introduce the euro. So the postponement decision that Donald Tusk had made in 2012, well, it wasn't

called into question by the successive governments, which kept the Polish national currency, which is called the zloty. And then, as usual, it's the game of democracy. The wear and tear of power hit this coalition, and starting in 2023, pro-European forces returned

to power in Warsaw, and Donald Tusk became prime minister again, just as he had been in 2007-2008. So, 15 years later, he became Polish Prime Minister again and found himself facing this equation, which authorities in Brussels and Frankfurt—since it's also the ECB

—reminded him of on this occasion, asking Poland: "So, when are you joining the euro, since you're back in power?" And so, Tusk found himself confronted with this dilemma, between, on one hand, the European treaties that still obligate Poland to join the euro.

And on the other hand, the continued refusal of the Polish people to join the euro. A Eurobarometer survey conducted a few months ago indicates that about 57%of Poles refuse tooth and nail to abandon the zloty. It's funny, by the way, because this 57%corresponds

exactly to the 57%of Swedes who also refused the adoption of the euro and wanted to keep the Swedish currency, the Swedish krona. So Tusk said to himself, well, I have to do something because the European Union demands it,

but 57%of the Polish people don't want it. He therefore found himself facing a dilemma. But in the meantime, time had passed. Meaning that this time, he had the benefit of hindsight to see, because in 2008, the euro had only just

about come into force. Not exactly, it really came into effect starting January 1st, 1999, as I told you, in terms of interbank exchange, and especially in the public consciousness starting January 1st, 2002. So in 2007, 2008, 2009, one could still waffle a

bit, whereas in 2023, 2025, well, it has now been more than 20 years. It will soon be 2026. Next year, in 2027, it will have been a quarter-century since the euro arrived in our wallets on January 1st, 2002. And so un-unlike

his first term as prime minister, Donald Tusk was able to rationally judge which of the two he preferred.

And what has he just decided? And this is the news from the day before yesterday. Well, he has just decided to once again postpone Poland's adoption of the euro. And what's important is why? Officially, he tried to muddy the

waters. He made some rather vague remarks, to put it mildly, saying that of course Poland would adopt the euro, but that first, the standard of living of the Poles had to catch up to Germany's. Well, that the GDP in

purchasing power parity should approach German income levels. And secondly, that the Polish population accepts the principle. Which is still not the case.

He actually used the same argument as the Swedes, since I recall that the Swedes voted no in 2003, and there still hasn't been a new referendum on it because all the polls in Sweden show that the Swedish people are still 57%

dead set against adopting the euro. And so Tusk examined the situation. He therefore said he was postponing it and brought up these two points. One, the Polish people must agree, and two, that our standard of living must more or

less catch up to Germany's. But in reality, those aren't the real reasons. Those are diplomatic reasons. The real reasons. They were spelled out by the Polish finance minister of the Tusk government—a pro-European government, I should point out—who said, his name

is Andrzej Domaniski, he made the following statement; you should look at it in blazing letters if you like. That is really the essential part. Look at what he said. The Polish finance minister just declared: "Our economy is doing clearly better than most of those

that have adopted the euro." We have more and more data, economic research, and arguments for keeping the Polish zloty. Poland is now among the leading economies, and I see no compelling reason to abandon our own currency.

Well, this is something that should be a subject of debate in France for the presidential election. We have one of the very large countries in the European Union whose finance minister, despite being pro-European, says we shouldn't adopt the euro because it

would harm the currency. Why does he say that, by the way? Because in 2008-2009, there was a crisis in Poland , and this crisis was resolved by a currency depreciation of the zloty, which lost about 15%of its value

against other currencies, especially against the euro of neighboring countries, since Poland has the zloty but Germany has the euro, as does France, and so on. And so, during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, this depreciation of the zloty suddenly boosted Polish exports. It became 15%

cheaper, and therefore limited the damage, so to speak, and limited the recession that should have followed.

And what the Polish government understood well at the time by examining this period is that if it had been in the euro, it could not have had this currency depreciation. And so the financial crisis it was undergoing, unable to be cushioned by the

depreciation of the national currency, would have resulted in extremely painful measures from a social standpoint, with a drop in the standard of living and an increase in unemployment. Let us add to this that it is not only the finance minister,

Mr. Domanski; there is also the governor of the Polish Central Bank who said that it was absolutely necessary to keep the Polish zloty, because he explained to his fellow citizens that it was much better to have one's national currency to manage interest

rates. You just have to intervene in the financial markets to try to set targets in the financial markets for interest rates to have interest rates that best correspond to the needs of the Polish economy. Whereas the governor of the Bank of Poland

explained that, if we were in the euro, if Poland were in the euro, the interest rates would be those resulting from the management of the European Central Bank located in Frankfurt, and the exchange rate, particularly of the euro, might not correspond at all to

the needs of the Polish economy. The governor of the Central Bank of Poland was appointed by a government that was precisely Euro-critical, but his successor will be appointed by the Polish president, who himself happens to be Euro-critical, given that we are

in a period of cohabitation in Warsaw. And so, the next governor of the Polish Central Bank, who will take office, I believe in 2028 for a 6-year term, is fiercely opposed to the adoption of the euro. Which means, if you have followed

me, that in reality, what Donald Tusk has just announced, and if we examine a little bit the people around him, the configuration of personalities and forces, it means that Poland will not adopt the euro any sooner than 2035. We

will have to wait until the end of 2034 at the earliest for Poland to enter the euro. Even though I remind you that Poland joined the European Union in 2004. This means here is a country that for 30 years will still not have

entered the euro. I point this out because it is not told to the French.

The French are not told that there are, in fact, six states in the European Union that are not in the euro. And for some of them today, as I have said, it has now been 23 years that Sweden

should have been in the euro and it has refused. And here, I tell you that for Poland, it has been 22 years that it should have been in the euro. It is still not there. And it announces to us

that it still won't be there in 2044, that is to say, 30 years later. Now, this must be compared with another phenomenon, which is that Poland benefits from European funds. It is the number one beneficiary country of European funds. Poland receives,

roughly—well, like all member countries of the European Union, you know me, I have explained this to you very often—Poland gives money to the European Commission, and the European Commission gives money back to Poland, like all states. But it turns out that

there are states that are net contributors: one, Germany; two, France ; three, the Netherlands since the departure of the United Kingdom. These net contributor countries give much more to the European Commission than they receive from it. Which is not the

case for Poland, since Poland gives much less to the European Commission than what it receives. Because the surpluses go to the European Commission , since we contribute much more than we receive, but the European Commission takes a portion for its own operating

costs and those of the entire structure of European institutions, the Court of Justice, the Parliaments, and so on, but it also handles equalization. And so the European Commission pays much more money to Eastern countries, which are poorer, to raise their standard of

living. Poland receives approximately 15 billion euros in net benefits every year, which is considerable. It’s roughly the net deficit of what France loses. We don't know the figures precisely; they vary, it's hidden, top secret, or whatever you want to call it

. We know it's between 12 and 15 billion euros. We don't know exactly, but it's probably around that. In the meantime, Poland has been a net beneficiary of 15 billion euros for years. Now, these 15 billion euros represent a significant windfall coming

from abroad that helps boost the Polish economy. If I can use a comparison, a metaphor I've used before which is a bit harsh but captures the point quite well. Imagine in a hospital room, there are two patients, and one is having

blood drawn to be given to the other who is sicker. The one who is sicker receives blood like that, more and more . What will happen? Well, what will happen is that the one receiving the fresh blood will gradually regain their

strength and recover. But the one having their blood drawn will eventually struggle, as you know you can't take more than a liter of blood from a human. That is the absolute maximum. It is often more like 200 or

300 ml taken during a blood transfusion . So, it's much the same thing. Meaning you have states like Germany and France from which resources are taken—taken and taken—that don't come back and aren't invested in the French economy.

It contributes to the recession in countries that are net contributors. Which is something I’ve been explaining for years...But in the national debate, in the public debate, we never talk about it. But this is one of the fundamental causes of the

long-term impoverishment of the French people: when we send billions of euros abroad each year that are never reinvested here, it is much worse than giving money, for example, for welfare benefits, right? I see the hyper-liberals, ultra-liberals, and so

on, like Mr. Lissard, Ms. Knafo, and others, who tell us we must cut public spending. They simply forget—and I agree that there is too much public spending—that one must select which spending to cut. Because when it comes to welfare, yes, there are some abuses,

that is no doubt true, but the people who receive these benefits spend the bulk of what they receive on expenses that keep the national economy running.

Sure, they might buy imported products, but for things like services or when they buy food and so on, it still keeps the national economy going. Whereas when we give 15 billion euros to the European Union, and those 15 billion

euros go to irrigate Poland, Hungary, etc., knowing that Poland receives 15 billion euros, it doesn't just come from France; it comes from Germany and so on. When we give this money to the European Union, it is not reinvested in

France. This is, moreover, why Jacques Chirac had protested so vehemently when , barely after joining the European Union, Poland decided in 2005 or 2006 to buy American F-15 or F-35 planes rather than French ones. And so, Chirac had said that it really wasn't very

fair, while Poland was starting to receive considerable funds from the European Union—that is to say, from German taxpayers and French taxpayers —for Poland to start buying only American products, I might point out in passing. So this effect is a recessive

one for France and very positive for Poland. That's not all, either. Because with this money, Poland doesn't just buy American planes. It improves its infrastructure. Considerable work has been done in Poland: improvements to roads, bridges, railways, airports, and

a whole series of infrastructures that have made the country very attractive and have, incidentally, encouraged companies, especially French companies, to go and invest in Poland, to the detriment, moreover, of investment in France. And furthermore, the posted workers directive meant that France,

among others, had to let Polish workers come into France. God knows how much we talked about that famous Polish worker coming to work in France at a price that pressured the wages of French laborers. So, all of this functions for

the considerable benefit of Poland and to the detriment of France in every single area. I remind you: Poland benefits from 15 billion euros, modernizes its infrastructure, benefits from investments coming from wealthy Western countries, and incidentally— though it is not at all incidental, it

is fundamental—refuses to adopt the euro to be able to manage, to have a competitive currency to manage its foreign trade positively. What is the end result of all this? It is that when Poland joined the European Union in

2004, the Polish standard of living was 40%of the French standard of living, and today in 2026, meaning 22 years later, it is 80%of the French standard of living. And, according to the International Monetary Fund, the standard of living of the Poles will

have surpassed that of the French by 2034, which, by the way—and I am addressing the die-hard Europhiles here who say it is normal for France to pay more because everyone needs to be at the same level. I am putting them to

the test because there will come a moment when France will be poorer than the country it is helping. And so, the Europhiles will have to explain to us how that will work in budget negotiations with the European Union,

saying: "It will soon be time for Poland to be a net contributor and for us to once again be beneficiaries of aid, as we were in the early 60s, when France received more money than it gave ." That was money coming from Germany

for the benefit of farmers. If that were the case, it is not impossible that, knowing the mindset of the Poles —who are a people always very jealous of their sovereignty, their independence, but who also do their accounts very well and are very clever

since they do what the English call " cherry-picking," which means taking only the best—that is to say, the Poles, like other Eastern countries, use everything that can serve them. So they accept subsidies coming from Europe, but they refuse the currency.

They accept the investments, they accept the aspect of posted workers, but they always want to be net beneficiaries. And what if a day came when they were suddenly told: well, now you're going to be a net contributor.

We can count on the Poles, like the Hungarians, like the Romanians, and so on and so forth, to say: we're not going along with this, we're leaving the European Union. That was absolutely written in the cards, because you have

to be as naive as the French to believe in the grand ideals of the European project, right? Yet Charles de Gaulle had clearly warned us that in international affairs, there are no friends, there are no friends between states. There are only interests. So, I

would now like to conclude, conclude this video by elevating the debate a little and taking all the countries of Europe, of the European continent.

Because, in fact, on this European continent, you have three types of states. You have a small group of states that have refused to enter the European Union and adopt the euro.

There are three of them in Western Europe. The three countries are Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland. That is the first group. To this, we can arguably add, for a few years now, the United Kingdom, which has just joined this group. There is the United Kingdom

, which spent several years in the Economic Community that became the European Union starting in 1992. So it is a special case. There is a second group of states that entered the European Union but did not enter the

euro. As I told you, these are the six states I already mentioned, which can actually be subdivided into two subgroups. The first group is Sweden, Denmark, and the Czech Republic, which are in the European Union but have not

adopted the euro, and which can be considered countries that were already quite wealthy and developed. And then there is a second subgroup among those that did not accept the euro while entering the European Union: Hungary, Poland, and Romania. And then, there is

a third group: it is the set of countries that entered both the European Union and the euro, and there are 21 of them, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and Greece. There we go. So, I was

interested in examining the situation of these countries now with the benefit of hindsight, since, as I said, it has been over a quarter of a century—a quarter of a century that the euro has been operating in interbank exchanges

since '99, that's 27 years—and, since 2002, it is the currency that replaced the national currencies. It will be 25 years, a quarter of a century, next year. We therefore have the benefit of hindsight. Just as we have hindsight on

the benefits or drawbacks of the European Union, since in 2027, it will have been 70 years that we've been building Europe since the 1957 Treaty of Rome, and since 1992, it will have been 35 years that we have been in the

European Union, in a federal Europe. So , we can at some point take stock, and that is what I will dedicate a part of the presidential election, the campaign for the 2027 presidential election to, because it is an assessment that all

the other political parties will refuse to make, including of course the National Rally, which increasingly is a copy-paste of Macronism, and including Mr. Mélenchon as well, who refuses to leave the European Union and the euro.

So what is this assessment? Let's keep it simple. When you examine the macroeconomic data, and you can use ChatGPT, you can use Claude, all the AIs will be able to help you make these comparisons. What will you discover?

You will discover that the first group, the group of three countries that refused to join the European Union and the euro—that is, Switzerland, Norway , and Iceland—are the countries that are doing by far the best in all areas.

These are countries that, in terms of public debt, growth, unemployment, and inflation, break all the records; they are the best positioned. And I would add, as I have had the opportunity to say before, that if you go check the

United Nations website, specifically the United Nations Development Programme, you will find that these are the three countries at the very top of all the countries in the world in the Human Development Index, the HDI, which is a multi-factor index, a composite

index that takes into account life expectancy at birth, I believe the participation of women in public life or whatever, and the level of GDP per capita. Well, there are several criteria for judging the general development index. These three

countries are therefore the ones that are succeeding the best. And I might point out that these three countries are small countries. Switzerland has a little less than 10 million inhabitants , 9.5 million inhabitants. Norway has about 4 to 5 million inhabitants and

Iceland has 330,000 inhabitants. And these are the countries in the world where people are doing the best, where people are the happiest, and in Europe, those whose macroeconomic data are all the best. That still poses a bit of a

problem. It should pose an enormous problem, even for all our ideologues who, 68 years since the Treaty of Rome, keep telling us that France is far too small not to be in the European Union, who tell us that if we are in the

European Union, we will be stronger than the others, and who tell us that thanks to the euro, we will be able to stand up to the others. Proof has been provided of the exact opposite. And I feel compelled to say this because, of

course, I know the arguments like "Yes, but Switzerland is only banks." But that is not true at all. It is not true at all. The entire financial industry in Switzerland accounts for about 9%of GDP, and banks strictly speaking

account for 5%of Swiss GDP. Switzerland is first and foremost a great power in services, and not just financial services, but also in industrial products. You have very large industrial companies in Switzerland.

Does Nestlé mean anything to you? The world's great food giant is Swiss. You have major Swiss industries in optics, in electronics, and in watchmaking.

There are people who say, "Yes, Norway, Norway," I've seen some say "It's a Nordic Scandinavian emirate.""Do they have gas?" Yes, it is true that they have gas, but they have managed it very well. They created a fund for future

generations, which just proves that they are an industrious and intelligent people. And then there's Iceland; Iceland has nothing, they have fisheries and so on, they have no particular gas resources, they don't have an extraordinary industry, but in any case, they are doing very well.

Good for them. They manage their economy in a collective optimum for a country of 330,000 inhabitants. Next, the group of countries that are members of the European Union but have not adopted the euro. I told you there are

two subgroups. On one side, there are the most developed, that is to say Sweden, Denmark, and the Czech Republic . When you examine their macroeconomic results, well, they are very good.

These are countries that generally have very low debt. Denmark, for example, has had budget surpluses for several years. It has reduced Denmark's public debt to something like between 25 and 28%of GDP, compared to the 118%we have in France, and also what they have in

Spain, what they have in Italy, what they have in Belgium, and so on. The same goes for the Czech Republic, the same for Sweden. This data is also flattering in terms of inflation and is also very good in terms of unemployment

. Perhaps a bit less good for Sweden, which has a 7%unemployment rate, but unemployment in Denmark or the Czech Republic is around 4%; so it is very, very low. Inflation is contained, and so we can say that, globally, from a

macroeconomic point of view, these are countries that are doing relatively well. There is a third—well, there is a second subgroup within this group of European Union countries that have not adopted the euro. As I told you earlier , it is Poland, it is Romania, it is

Bulgaria, because Bulgaria has been in the euro only for a few months. So the data I am talking about is data that has been compared—you can see it on the screen—and that was compared using the Claude artificial intelligence engine. So, since Bulgaria

has only been in the euro for a few months and the study was conducted over the last five years, we have attached Bulgaria to the group of EU countries outside the euro. So there is Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. In

these four countries, what do we observe? We observe that they have phenomenal economic results in terms of growth. On the other hand, poor results in terms of public debt and inflation.

And very good results in terms of unemployment. Obviously, when you have very strong growth, generally, you don't have much unemployment. Why this strong growth in Hungary and Poland, for example? Well, as I told you earlier, it's because first and

foremost, you have a colossal injection of funds from European countries. Which allows you to have, afterwards, what we call the Keynesian multiplier. Because when you have, when you build infrastructure, you provide work for public works companies, electricians, roofers, architects, architectural

firms, structural work, and so on and so forth, which will have subcontractors, which will have employees who will invest, or rather spend their money in the Polish economy . And with the multiplier phenomenon, that will push the country's entire

economy upward. So, these countries benefit fully from the European Union's manna, but on the other hand, they have trouble keeping their public debt in check. And so, you have very significant rates of debt and budget deficit, for example in Poland, where

the deficit has been around more than 7 %in recent years, in the last year, which is higher than the French rate, as the French rate for 2026 is projected to be around a 6%deficit. But let's clarify that public debt in

Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania is still at a much lower level than that of the French Republic. So there is still some room for maneuver. The unemployment rate, correlated with the growth rate, is very low. And there you

go. And then the last ones are the 21 member countries of the European Union and the euro, including France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium, Germany, Austria, and so on. Well, look at the statistics that Claude gives you . Look at the conclusions that

artificial intelligence provides you. Now, we are a quarter-century after the adoption of the euro. We are nearly a third of a century since the creation of the European Union and we are 68 years after the start of European

integration. What do we see? We see that these 21 countries are actually doing poorly. They have weak growth, significantly weaker than in other countries. They have high, and sometimes very high, debt, high public debt, sometimes very high. They have

inflation that isn't very good and they have unemployment. Well, it depends on which ones. But there are some, notably France, that have all the handicaps combined. France has both a very high unemployment rate, not to mention that we disguise a number of statistics. It

has completely disproportionate, completely excessive debt. It has inflation that isn't that great after all. Even though normally, when you have unemployment and a low growth rate , you don't have much inflation, and then we have a very low growth rate, we

are almost at stagnation, if not recession. There, I'll end this video here. I hope this will give you some food for thought. What I mean by this fundamental video is that the French have been lied to and that no one wants

to draw the real balance sheet of the euro. It is time to assess the euro a quarter-century after its introduction and a third of a century after the arrival of the European Union. It is time to start taking stock, and this

balance sheet is not good. It's even bad. It is even very bad, especially when compared to countries that refused to adopt the European Union and the euro, and yet are much smaller in size, area, economy, and population than

France. Overall, I hope I have demonstrated that since the dawn of time, a national currency means a people and a state, a sovereignty. I have had the opportunity to explain this. This concept can be found in the First Book of Maccabees in the Old

Testament. I hope I have shown you that this is once again confirmed. A national currency is a currency at the service of a nation, of a people.

Whereas the euro, which is a supranational currency, is not a currency at the service of the people; it is a currency at the service of an ideology and the caste of the oligarchy that drives this ideology for its own

profit. Thank you for your attention. Long live the exit from this hell that is the European Union and the euro, long live national sovereignty and independence, and long live a restored France.

Thank you for supporting the PR to continue the work of emancipation undertaken 18 years ago by François.

Your donations are essential. Your mobilization is, too. Mr.