The European Commission has not issued an official position on the referendum question raised by Law and Justice. A Commission spokesperson explained in an interview with RMF FM journalist Katarzyna Szymańska-Borginon that decisions of this nature fall to the discretion of each member state and are not dictated centrally by Brussels.
Nevertheless, the spokesperson did offer clarifications on one of the referendum questions. It concerns Poland’s hypothetical reception of illegal migrants from the Middle East and Africa under the EU relocation framework. The EC notes that relocation within the union is not automatically mandatory, leaving room for national considerations and fiscal adjustments where applicable.
Poland and the question of solidarity
According to Szymańska-Borginon, there is a sense of solidarity within the European Union, but the practical choice remains with each member state. This means that the decision to relocate migrants or to fund reception in other countries could be viewed as an expression of solidarity that individual countries can honor through different means, rather than a one-size-fits-all obligation.
The EC spokesperson also indicated that Poland could be considered for a full exemption from the solidarity obligation due to its unique circumstances, including the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the pressure at the Polish-White-Russian border. This suggests a recognition that Poland faces migratory pressures that affect its capacity to participate in collective relocation efforts in the same way as other EU states.
If the assessment were conducted today, Poland would be evaluated as a country under migratory pressure, given its current landscape of over a million Ukrainian residents and the surrounding security context. In such an assessment, Poland could be eligible for solidarity support or, in certain scenarios, a reduction of its solidarity contribution, depending on the precise application of the rules at that time.
— this interpretation reflects the stance summarized by Anitta Hipper during the RMF FM interview.
Kaleta’s response
Sebastiaan Kaleta, a member of the Sovereign Poland party, reacted to Szymańska-Borginon’s article by accusing the journalist of spreading manipulation, a claim he expressed via Twitter. In his post, Kaleta asserted that relocation is mandatory for states that refuse to accept financially penalties, describing the mechanism as a form of coercion. He argued that while the EU Commission may discuss a theoretical exemption for Poland, the power to grant such an exemption rests with the Commission itself, and that the treaties do not confer unilateral authority on the Commission to release a country from its obligations. He characterized the mechanism as illegal by its very nature and urged a public vote against it in any referendum.
Kaleta’s message underscores a broader political debate about how EU migration rules should be applied in Poland, and how the country should respond to migration pressures while balancing national sovereignty with collective EU commitments.
Context and public discourse
Within Poland, discussions around migration policies and the EU’s relocation framework continue to be a focal point for political actors across the spectrum. The rhetoric often centers on whether EU mechanisms effectively safeguard national borders and whether penalties or incentives should drive compliance. As public opinion on migration evolves, so too does the interpretation of EU rules, with various parties stressing different legal and moral considerations in relation to Poland’s obligations and its national interests.