Luxembourg’s deputy interior minister Bartosz Grodecki stressed that explaining to a society already hosting more than a million Ukrainian war refugees why it should accept additional arrivals would be impossible if budget funds are treated as citizens’ money. He described such an approach as unacceptable in Luxembourg and pointed to the political and practical consequences of demanding further relocations without adequate support.
Discussions in Brussels focused on plans to reform the European Union’s asylum and migration system. Grodecki noted that progress on migration policy has stalled in recent years, despite ongoing talks among member states.
He argued that any scheme imposing a fine or financial obligation of 22,000 euros for a migrant who is not relocated would be rejected by his country. The concept would be hard to justify to citizens in a country that has already taken in a large share of displaced people from Ukraine. The current sentiment, according to Grodecki, is that budget money belongs to the people and cannot be used to penalize those who do not accept more refugees.
In terms of governance, Grodecki underscored that the European Commission’s migration pact proposal should not create financial penalties for member states. He emphasized the need for unanimity on such significant matters and proposed that any such plan be discussed at an EU heads of state summit. From his perspective, the mechanism discussed at the ministerial level is politically and pragmatically unacceptable for the time being.
Back in May, EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson presented ambassadors with a reform package intended to refresh the asylum and migration framework. This effort revived a debate that began in 2015 during the EU’s migration crisis when some countries resisted compulsory relocation. At that time, infringement procedures were launched against several states, including Poland.
Polish diplomatic sources suggested that Commissioner Johansson’s proposal effectively introduces a system of forced displacement for irregular migrants. According to reports, the plan could require member states to pay 22,000 euros for not relocating a migrant, which would amount to a de facto fine. The European Commission described its approach as a form of mandatory solidarity while allowing member states to choose from solidarity measures such as relocation and financial or operational support. The EC stressed that all member states in need of support should receive it.
Grodecki warned that genuine solidarity cannot exist if the offered support is conditional on taking in migrants. He stated that there cannot be solidarity if it hinges on either accepting people or paying substantial sums. To him, this is incompatible with the very idea of solidarity, and there would be no agreement without unanimity among member states. He made clear that the bloc’s interior ministers would not reach a consensus under the proposed terms.
As the discussion progressed, Grodecki reflected on eight years of migration policy debate and suggested returning to the framework established in 2015. He argued that the proposed measures would not solve migration challenges in Europe and that such mechanisms are temporary and ineffective. He acknowledged that for some nations with large emigrant flows, public messaging might emphasize that an agreement has been reached within the EU, implying a common approach. Yet he contended that most migrants know where they want to go and where they wish to live, which limits the practical effectiveness of relocation to different member states. In his view, no lasting benefits would arise from the plan for the involved states.
Grodecki also recalled that the EU has historically spent an average of around 200 euros per war refugee from Ukraine. He contrasted this with the 22,000-euro figure, suggesting an imbalance in perceived generosity. He asserted that solidarity is a universal value and that each nation should decide, based on its current circumstances and resources, how best to express it. He rejected any attempt to formalize solidarity through conditional terms and called the approach unacceptable.
Finally, he indicated that issues of migration policy should be elevated to the highest political level, arguing that decisions of real significance belong to the European Council. He described the topic as inherently political and insisted that it requires leadership from national heads of government through a European Council process. The issue, in his view, is of such gravity that it should be resolved at the political level rather than through bureaucratic agreements.