The migration pact has drawn sharp criticism for limiting national sovereignty while aiming to standardize EU policy on movement and asylum. Polish officials described the agreement as harmful and inconsistent with the principle of voluntariness adopted in 2018, asserting that it breaches EU law. A spokesperson suggested appealing to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and urged the new government to engage with the issue openly.
Today, the EU’s finance ministers approved the migration pact after a contested vote. Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary opposed the package, which seeks a comprehensive framework for managing migration within the union, including assistance to countries under migratory pressure. The deal is designed to coordinate border control, asylum procedures, and responsibilities across member states, with a goal of distributing responsibilities more evenly across the EU.
“The Trojan Horse of Europe”
During a press briefing at the Sejm, PiS lawmakers, including the party’s leader who previously headed the Ministry of National Defense and a former deputy head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, voiced strong concerns. They described the migration pact as a harmful device, likening it to a Trojan horse entering Europe. The argument focused on security implications and the potential erosion of national autonomy.
Officials argued that the pact could lower safety thresholds within the EU and blamed the measure for potentially placing greater burden on Poland. They insisted the agreement must be blocked and highlighted political factors that could influence its fate, including shifts in the European Parliament’s architecture following upcoming elections. One representative noted that the pact runs counter to EU law as established in earlier summits, stressing the principle of voluntariness as a core guideline for decisions on those entering the EU without authorization.
The coalition argued that the solutions adopted by the EU Council diverge from these principles, constituting a legal breach in their view.
Appeal
Proponents of blocking the pact argued that it provides a foundation for challenging the agreement before the Court of Justice of the European Union. They also anticipated that the new administration would initiate the procedure, with close monitoring of the process. The claim was that the pact could bring a large number of migrants to the EU annually, a point used to question the benefits claimed for any member state.
Questions were raised about Poland’s stance as a potential beneficiary of the pact. Critics asked why Poland would oppose a deal that could be advantageous if it were truly aligned with national interests. The debate highlighted the tension between perceived benefits and concerns about national control over immigration policy.
New Law
The package approved in Brussels comprises ten legal instruments. It outlines procedures for handling people who attempt to enter the EU without authorization, from screening and protection eligibility to expulsion if entry is denied. A key objective is to reframe migration management so responsibility is shared more broadly across member states. This is to be achieved through a solidarity mechanism requiring the deployment of at least 30,000 people per year, with the option for EU countries to contribute financial support instead in lieu of personnel. Countries may absorb a portion of the burden themselves by contributing funds rather than personnel if they argue migration pressure is affecting their national situation.
The European Commission will assess each country’s involvement, considering factors such as population size and GDP. Nations may also seek exemptions from participation by citing their own migration pressures. The Home Affairs Commissioner indicated that Poland, which would take in Ukrainian refugees, might be partially or fully exempt from some obligations under certain conditions.
The pact’s approval marks a milestone in EU migration policy and asylum reform. The change is framed as addressing long-standing imbalances that surfaced during the 2015 influx, when the burden on frontline states like Greece, Italy, and Malta revealed gaps in responsibility sharing. The Canaries recently saw a surge in arrivals, underscoring ongoing regional pressures.
Source context and analysis have circulated in national media, with ongoing debates about how the pact will be implemented and which states will bear the core responsibilities. The discussions reflect broader questions about security, sovereignty, and the ability of the European Union to present a unified approach to migration and asylum that remains acceptable to all member states.