Karol Nawrocki wants Poles to talk in a referendum on EU climate policy. The vote would take place on September 27, 2026, but first the legislature must consent. The biggest dispute has sparked, not the referendum itself, but a question which experts believe contains a ready assessment and leads the voter to 1 answer.
The president has asked the legislature to hold a national referendum on 7 May. The draft provision states the question: "Are you in favour of a climate policy that has led to an increase in the cost of surviving for citizens, energy prices and economical and agricultural activities?". The voting day was scheduled for Sunday, September 27, 2026, from 6.00 to 22.00.
In his speech published by the Chancellery of president Nawrocki, he argued that the issue concerns the everyday life of Polish families, entrepreneurs and farmers. He talked about rising energy costs, food prices and economical burdens. He besides stressed that the referendum "is not against environmental protection or Poland's membership in a united Europe", but is intended to cover the pace of change, their scope and costs.
Expert: question has a built-in answer
The most critical is the way the question is formulated. Jakub Wiech, an energy and climate policy expert, in a commentary for “Faktu” called them “political theatre”. He compared the plan of the question to the question “Do you support evil?” pointing out that it is hard to anticipate citizens to answer yes erstwhile the question itself included a negative assessment.
In his interview with Money.pl Wiech besides assessed that "this construct is pointless", due to the fact that it brings a complex debate about energy costs to a simple slogan. The expert does not say that climate policy does not make costs. His argument is different: the deficiency of transformation and further dependence on fossil fuels besides cost money, and fresh years have shown how painful gas, oil and coal prices can hit the economy and home budgets.
This is an crucial point in this discussion. Indeed, the climate policy of the European Union means fresh responsibilities and expenditure, especially for energy, industry, transport and construction. The ETS2, i.e. the fresh emissions trading strategy for buildings, road transport and parts of tiny industry, is to be full operational in 2028. It will formally cover fuel suppliers, not straight households, but its effects can be felt in energy and transport prices. This is why a Social Climate Fund has been created alongside the ETS2, which aims to mitigate the social impact of changes on the most susceptible households, microcompanies and transport users.
Costs are on both sides of the dispute
On the another hand, Poland inactive pays immense amounts for imports of energy natural materials. According to the Energy Forum, in 2024 the value of imports of energy natural materials and fuels to Poland amounted to about PLN 112 billion. It is this argument that Wiech refers to erstwhile he says that the president is "pretending he cannot see" the cost of dependence on fossil fuels.
Therefore, the dispute is not a simple clash of "cheap versus expensive". On 1 side are the real costs of transformation: investments, modernisation of buildings, changes in transport, force on manufacture and agriculture. Second, fuel import costs, fluctuations in natural materials prices, dependence on external suppliers and energy bills in a strategy inactive heavy based on fossil fuels.
Research experts and referendums joined the criticism
Following Wiech's comments, experts from public opinion surveys and electoral procedures spoke. Dr hab. Ewa Marciniak, manager of CBOS, a polytolist and lecturer at the University of Warsaw, assessed for Zero.pl that Nawrocki's question is "a question with a thesis". She added briefly: "No specified questions are asked in the nationwide referendum".
Marciniak pointed out that the plan of the question has a political goal, as it suggests an answer. In her opinion, only 1 side of climate policy is shown — an increase in the cost of surviving and energy prices — without a full picture, including without the effects of air contamination on health. She assessed that if a referendum were to take place, the question would should be reworded.
Dr Maciej Onasz, a political scientist and electoral expert from the University of Lodz, spoke equally critically. In his conversation with Zero.pl, he called the question "extremely stupid" and "unacceptable in a referendum situation". He added that no public investigation studio would ask a question in this form, due to the fact that it contains a clear thesis.
Dr hab. Jarosław Flis, prof. of the Jagiellonian University, stated in turn that "this is not a question suitable for a referendum". In his opinion, the legislature will reject them in this form, due to the fact that "it is incorrect to spend a fewer 100 million zlotys on specified a thing". Flis besides pointed out that the question does not specify the real decision that citizens would make.
Politicians besides hit the question form
Criticism rapidly went beyond the expert community. Marshals of the legislature of Margaret Kidawa-Błońska said that referendums should be taken seriously, but citizens should be asked questions that they can answer objectively alternatively than “questions without meaning”. In TVN24 she besides estimated that the question was with the thesis and did not take citizens seriously.
Magdalena Biejat, Deputy Marshal of the legislature of the Left, wrote that this "dries and dependence on coal and oil increases food and electricity prices" alternatively than the European Union. According to the account of Onetu and Radio ZET, she besides estimated that the proposal would “land where it belongs — in the basket.” Andrzej Domanski, Minister of Finance and Economy, accused the president of the bias of the question. According to Interia, he wrote: "It is not democracy, it is inexpensive propaganda".
Jan Szyszko, Deputy Minister of Funds and Regional Policy, told the HR that he did not intend to act as a defender of EU climate policy, which he felt needed to be repaired. At the same time, he estimated that the question thus formulated "compromises the thought of a referendum". He added that, in his opinion, the question "with a spirit closer to the Crimean and Donbaski plebiscites than to fair referendums".
Krzysztof Bosak of the Confederation did not question the thought of a referendum. However, he pointed out that the question should be correctly edited, and that putting the arguments of 1 side of the dispute into it would be against the thought of a referendum. Marek Sawicki of PSL, erstwhile Minister of Agriculture, said in an interview with Money.pl that the referendum was needed by the president politically, due to the fact that it is hard to anticipate mass support for the EU's "climate policy" with this question. He besides added that politicians of the camp were liable for the ETS, from which Nawrocki's political base came: "It is Mateusz Morawiecki who is the face of the ETS, and Janusz Wojciechowski of the Green Deal".
The legislature will now decide the destiny of the referendum. He will decide whether the presidential initiative will turn into a national vote or stay a political signal in the Green Deal, ETS and energy bills. However, it is already visible present that the climate referendum has become more than a question of EU regulation. It became a test of how citizens in Poland are asked about matters that are truly important.
