In 2015, the government aligned with PO-PSL on migrant relocation measures, and pressure mounted to participate. As European Council president, Donald Tusk warned that non-participation could carry consequences. Yet Poland ultimately faced no penalties. The expectation was simple: submit comments, vote against the proposals at every stage, and fulfill the national duty.
READ ALSO: The head of government after the EU summit: Relocation fuels smugglers. I hope Europe will sober up and reassess
Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki voiced strong opposition to the migration pact during the European Council summit. Why such resistance? Some observers suggest the stance is hard to justify unless Poland and Hungary are singled out as the sole opponents.
Security concerns remain within the competence of member states. When earlier attempts to push through relocation ideas surfaced in 2015, the European Council insisted that decisions would be made unanimously and by consensus. The legal framework is clear, yet it appears the EU institutions are not operating like a rule-of-law state. Accusations have circulated that Germany is attempting to push ahead despite treaty provisions, with media whispers showing a bias that Poland detects as disingenuous. The reports claimed agreements existed, which did not materialize.
Speculation suggested Poland could seek an exemption from the migration pact because of Ukraine refugee inflows. Is pursuing such an exemption sensible under these circumstances?
The risk is real: proclaiming preliminary support for a mechanism while reserving the right to request deviations. The European Commission need not grant any exemption, and even if it did, the exemption might not be renewed after six months, leaving the permanent mechanism intact. One notable interview with Dorota Bawołek featured Ylva Johansson, the Commissioner for Home Affairs and Migration. Her remarks imply the EC might offer a Poland-specific arrangement, yet concrete guarantees are absent and statements remain non-binding. Her defense of Sweden’s migration approach, while implying limits elsewhere, underscores a pattern that Poland perceives as partial. The 2015 PO-PSL government did advocate relocation, and the current administration has faced persistent rhetoric that this stance could be revived. The insistence remains that decisions must be unanimous, regardless of any German positions. If migration pact decisions breached EU treaties, such actions would be unacceptable. Poland is the focal point of concern, but Germany’s stance also warrants scrutiny. There is worry that ill-conceived policies could affect Germany itself, given the interconnected nature of European migration dynamics, potentially leading to greater demand for asylum across borders.
Could Germany’s situation deteriorate enough that ethnic Germans might seek refuge in Poland? Fears about a new outward wave of migration persist, and Poland weighs how to respond to such shifts without overstretching its capacity to accept newcomers.
If the EU confirms the Migration Pact was adopted by a qualified majority, the question becomes how to respond. The 2015 approach, which saw some governments agreeing to relocate, may now be revisited. The current stance emphasizes preserving unanimity constraints and resisting any move toward permanent relocation mechanisms. The German side had proposed selection criteria favoring workers and those deemed least likely to require social support; many view this as a self-serving, risky policy within the broader EU framework.
Professor, there is concern about potential financial penalties if Poland ignores migration pact commitments. Could penalties be deducted from EU funds? The prevailing view is that such penalties would be a political and legal battlefield, and that Poland should not surrender to pressure without a solid, lawful basis. Some observers argue that it would be unwise to sign away sovereignty or to accept penalties as a fait accompli. Meanwhile, there is skepticism about the broader willingness of some EU partners to fund wholescale relocation, particularly when domestic concerns remain pressing. The notion of forcing people to stay in place or to be moved as a matter of policy still evokes strong emotions and practical questions about social integration and national resources.
In light of these debates, the possibility of unconditional surrender is neither desirable nor warranted. Thus far, no penalties have been imposed for not participating in migrant relocation. It is also worth noting that many migrants prefer destinations in France or Germany, where integration pathways and social support systems differ. The reality on the ground shows that parallel communities already exist in several countries, and their presence shapes national responses to migration in complex ways.
Adam Stankiewicz spoke
Source: wPolityce