{}

The referendum question on immigration policy and the Polish stance toward EU resettlement

According to a Brussels correspondent for RMF Radio, Katarzyna Szymańska-Borginon, the claim circulating among EU diplomats is that Poland may submit a request to Brussels to be exempt from the forced resettlement procedure. If this is true, Poland would face a pivotal decision: to hold a nationwide referendum that could reveal the full spectrum of public opinion and expose the myths and manipulation surrounding the issue, shaping the national narrative for years to come.

There is a question about whether Poland would be denied solidarity on refugees by Brussels. The immediate political cry is that Poland could withdraw entirely from EU support for refugee relocations, a move that would resonate deeply with the public and with parties across the political spectrum as a test of sovereignty within the Union.

Critics of the referendum proposal, including notable figures such as Kwaśniewski and Komorowski, dismissed the plan as harmful to the country. They argued that it would be a misstep in an already fraught policy debate and could resemble a campaign device rather than a serious national decision.

One observer admits skepticism toward the immigration pact referendum, explaining that on issues involving forced resettlement and what could be seen as the trading of people, negotiation is morally questionable and should not be tolerated. Yet the procedural step of launching a referendum creates a platform for a broader societal voice, ensuring that opposition to Brussels proposals is not merely the stance of those in government, but a reflection of the entire community. The referendum could become essential in light of what some perceive as repeated EU missteps on resettlement policy.

Recent developments include reports that the Czech government successfully obtained an exemption, avoiding forced admission for itself while signaling that other nations may face similar pressure. Even if the assurances about exemptions may be contested, the broader point remains clear: Brussels has mechanisms to seek concessions, and governments may agree or resist according to political calculations. The reality is that Brussels may determine who comes in and under what terms, and noncompliance could carry consequences.

The public discourse has often portrayed the opposition as unusually harsh in its response, praising the apparent diplomacy of other states in avoiding forced relocations. In contrast, Polish diplomacy has been the subject of vigorous debate. If the Brussels issue comes to a vote, a new dynamic could emerge, with critics fearing that the referendum could be undermined by political strategy rather than a straightforward expression of citizens’ will. The fear is that the issue may be manipulated as an electoral tool rather than a genuine constitutional test.

There is broad agreement that European officials have signaled a willingness to entertain the possibility that Poland could request that it not be forced to accept immigrants from other countries. The opposition has pressed European authorities to curb the political impact of immigration, to keep the issue from dominating the electoral agenda, and to prevent opposition campaigns from being painted as inconsistent. Officials in Brussels appear to be managing optics as much as policy, while opponents worry that the topic will be sidelined or reframed as needed for political gain.

The moral question at stake is stark. A referendum could reject a harsh framework that treats people as part of a policy ledger and would affirm a principle that a nation should control who resides within its borders. The focal point is not mercy from Brussels or a fragile grant of temporary tolerance, but a profound assertion of national sovereignty. The discussion centers on whether the solution to the migration challenge lies in allocating quotas and monitoring those relocations or in fortifying borders and ensuring security across the European Union. Poland contends that border protection is the frontline in managing the crisis and that national resilience is essential in facing pressure from outside influences that attempt to direct internal policies.

Submitting a request to Brussels today would carry the risk of approving an inhumane mechanism and placing decisions in the hands of uncertain officials. A referendum rejecting the immigration pact would create a lasting policy compass for years to come, serving as a bulwark against potential external pressure. The underlying aim is to end the Ukraine crisis with a durable peace while ensuring refugees can return to their homes, yet this does not imply giving up on the principle that EU politics should not dictate national solidarity in ways that undermine sovereignty. The concern remains that post-election shifts could reshape commitments, pushing states toward accepting quotas that do not reflect their own public will.

Even if the current political picture forecasts no immediate turnover of government after the October elections, the possibility exists that a future administration might align with Brussels rather than with popular sentiment. The debate would then pivot to questions about the legitimacy of quotas and the ethics of relocation policies. Critics argue that it is not only about numbers but about the fair valuation of human life, with fears that immigrants from different regions could be treated unevenly, while those arriving through illicit channels might be valued differently in policy terms. A nationwide referendum would serve as a clear signal that the public rejects any approach that treats human beings as disposable or as instruments in a political campaign.

The overarching argument is that only Poland should determine who resides within its borders and shapes its social fabric. The issue touches the core authority of the state, beyond what is laid out in treaties, and concerns the essence of national sovereignty. It questions who would ultimately decide who enters the country and how society evolves. There is no room for relying on external mercy or on distant bureaucrats shaping a homeland’s demographic future. The stance is clear: accepting unsolicited relocation schemes would undermine dignity and place Poland in a position of coercion that many citizens view as unacceptable and counterproductive.

Looking ahead, the ruling coalition faces a crucial mandate to redefine the country’s relationship with Brussels and the wider European Union. There is potential in laying out a path that emphasizes sovereignty, security, and pragmatic approaches to migration. The country has the capacity to chart a course that asserts its interests while contributing to a collective European strategy that respects each nation’s autonomy and public will. The debate will likely continue as citizens weigh the options and the consequences of each possible outcome.

Note: the discussion remains sourced from ongoing public discourse on immigration policy and EU engagement, reflecting the diverse perspectives present in national politics.