On Polish television, Beata Kempa expressed a sharp concern about EU policies on illegal migration, suggesting that decisive steps by the European Parliament could reshape how migrant flows are managed. She warned that the EU’s Migration Pact, a package of roughly thirteen regulations, would enable distant control measures, including a regulation tied to the Return Directive that is currently under consideration. In her view, these developments could push the Union toward far-reaching decisions without proper scrutiny at the national level.
Kempa argued that the most alarming mechanism would be the forced relocation of migrants and the imposition of quotas, a policy she claimed would translate into quotas for tens of thousands of individuals or costs per person not admitted. She contended that the crisis framework used by the European Commission could magnify these figures, multiplying the perceived scale of migration crises in member states. Her stance depicted the process as highly permissive toward large-scale relocation if the Parliament approves the pact, suggesting that leaders like Tusk would be compelled to acquiesce after initial concessions. According to her, the process relied on a strategy of incremental concessions that would eventually allow broad acceptance of the proposed measures.
She pointed to what she described as Tusk’s inaction in this policy area, arguing that he did not curb emerging proposals when they first appeared in the European Commission. Kempa suggested that those supporting the measures were aware from the outset of their potential consequences, and she implied that political calculations were at play to avoid institutional friction, thereby enabling further progression of the rules.
In Kempa’s view, the debate extended beyond this specific agreement. The EPP’s backing of the pact, in her assessment, reflected a broader pattern of behavior where opposition or resistance from some actors did not materialize into effective countermeasures. She asserted that there was a perception that leaders like Tusk could have been expected to block or slow the initiative, but failed to do so, allowing a series of regulatory steps to unfold.
She contended that even influential figures, including the European Union’s leadership, did not act as a barrier to these policies, preventing the pact from taking a more aggressive stance on migration management during its formative stages. Kempa argued that certain decisions were shaped by political calculations and the desire to avoid provoking backlash within coalition structures, resulting in a political environment where tough choices were postponed rather than resolved.
Looking at the broader political landscape, Kempa remarked that the discussions around governance and migration intersect with other major policy areas. She referenced the shift in liberal party positions on extreme ideas as a context for these changes, noting that some shifts could influence how the Green Deal and other priorities are perceived within the European Parliament. While she acknowledged a degree of cautious support for the Green Deal from some quarters, she insisted that fundamental choices remain at stake. The central concern, in her view, was that the political balance within the European Parliament could tilt as parties adjust their strategies and priorities. This dynamic, she argued, would shape the future stance on migration, climate policy, and related regulatory initiatives.
Throughout the discussion, Kempa urged readers to consider the consequences of policy moves that might prioritize long-term political outcomes over immediate practical impacts. She framed the debate as one of responsible governance, where careful evaluation of regulatory steps is essential to avoid unintended consequences for member states and their citizens. The discussion touched on the tension between ambitious environmental and social objectives and the need to maintain national sovereignty and pragmatic controls over border policy and migration management.
Green deal
Kempa drew attention to the broader question of how liberal parties approach extreme ideas in policy debates. She suggested that even initiatives like the Green Deal receive cautious support while warning that decisions hinge on concrete choices. The underlying message emphasized the potential for shifts in parliamentary coalitions and the importance of maintaining a clear, practical course amid evolving political currents. The emphasis remained on choices that could redefine the balance of influence among EU institutions and the member states in shaping future policy directions.
There is a sense in Kempa’s remarks that strategic planning within European politics involves anticipating how changes in leadership, coalition dynamics, and voting alignments can affect the trajectory of major policy projects. The speaker implied that debates around migration, economic strategy, and environmental policy are all interconnected, and that outcomes will depend on how parties navigate compromise and public sentiment.
mly/TV in Poland