In a recent interview with the wPolityce.pl portal, a PiS deputy argues that the referendum topics were not devised to drum up political advantage during the election. He contends that these issues arose from proposals by European Union institutions, and he accuses the Civic Platform of avoiding Poland’s interests by effectively muting the referendum through calls for a boycott. The deputy frames the situation as a clash between a party that wants Poland to have a vote and opponents who fear the EU’s reaction.
Asked why the opposition, particularly the PO, appears hesitant about the upcoming referendum, he suggests that the questions touch on the core tenets of democracy, and that the PO cannot pretend otherwise. He asserts that all four referendum questions matter, with immigration standing out as a pivotal concern that likely explains the PO’s reluctance to engage fully.
The interview recalls a parliamentary resolution from June 15, 2023, opposing an EU mechanism for relocating illegal migrants. The text, as presented, notes Poland and Hungary’s opposition to the proposal as it stood at the time. The deputy emphasizes that the focus is on the term “attempts” rather than a statement that the EU is mandating forced relocation—a distinction he believes is not lost on the platform’s defenders. He contends that the Platform and the Left maneuvered politically by not co-sponsoring the resolution, arguing that their stance would risk alienating EU leaders or Polish constituents alike.
According to the deputy, the PO’s current posture reflects a broader strategy: avoid a direct confrontation that might offend EU elites on one side or Polish voters on the other. He argues that the Platform is positioned more defensively than the Left, which is seen as having a stronger base and less to lose in this political moment. The deputy characterizes the PO’s approach as a calculated maneuver to minimize accountability while maintaining a semblance of consistency with its stance on immigration and related policies.
On the topic of the referendum questions themselves, the interview argues that PiS did not manufacture the topics; rather, they stem from EU-level initiatives. The deputy contends that the PO’s hesitancy reflects a fear of alienating both the European Union and domestic supporters who expect Poland to exercise sovereignty in Europe. He notes that Donald Tusk’s leadership has shaped the internal dynamic, suggesting that party discipline has frayed when it comes to sensitive issues like abortion, late-term abortion limits, euthanasia, ritual slaughter, and gun access. He claims that these divisions have influenced how PO MPs respond to the referendum matters, with concerns about opposing Tusk’s broader political agenda.
The deputy argues that the referendum is a test of national self-determination. He asserts that the rhetoric around immigration should be understood as a policy question about how Poland, as a sovereign nation, will decide who can enter and under what conditions, regardless of external pressures. The discussion extends to the way migrant flow is portrayed: he asserts that recent acceptance of Ukrainian refugees is distinct and should not be conflated with the relocation mechanisms under debate, maintaining that each country must determine its own immigration policies in line with its constitutional framework.
Regarding ideological issues like the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, religious slaughter, and gun rights, he suggests that party lines have been porous. He recalls a moment when a former leader publicly indicated a need to govern candidates by voting patterns, implying that such statements influence how PO members vote on related issues. The argument follows that current opposition legislators may fear opposing the party leadership, which can shape their positions in the referendum arena.
The deputy reiterates that PiS did not create the topics for the referendum and that these questions originated with EU institutions. He reiterates his view that the PO’s tactic—by collecting ballots or encouraging a boycott—appears designed to blur the line between a forced relocation policy and a voluntary migration scenario. He claims that the geopolitical debate around Ukraine’s war has influenced domestic policy, but he stresses that each nation should decide its own immigration approach irrespective of external conditions. The narrative concludes with a broader assessment of the election landscape: the potential for a brutal, low-substance campaign, driven by emotion, and the reality that Poland’s voice in the EU remains strong. He concedes that some EU figures, while outspoken, speak candidly and honestly, even if that candor is controversial. The perspective remains that the central opposition party cannot fully detach itself from its European connections while attempting to represent Polish voters in a turbulent political climate, a tension that may define the approaching electoral contest.