Forced migration and forced redistribution of migrants are not on the agenda for reforming the migration and asylum agreement, at least as long as Sweden holds a rotating EU presidency. The clarifications, which could change the course of negotiations in the coming weeks, were announced by Stockholm’s Minister of Immigration Maria Stenergard following a quandary raised by some Eastern bloc countries, notably Poland. And Sweden’s explanation was particularly well received by European officials, who said it was “important and timely,” tweeted EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson. Italians definitely wouldn’t have liked it much. A few hours ago, Warsaw threw the gauntlet on the table. In a tweet, Interior Minister Marius Kaminski said: “We have and will not agree to any deportation of migrants to Poland.” This clear position, in any case, risks further complicating negotiations to reach a common position on the controversial knot in the balance of ‘responsibility and solidarity’. It is a perpetual conflict between the countries of origin, including Italy, and the rest of Europe, which are often subject to so-called “secondary migration”, the flight of migrants to the north. The document is set to return to the table of the permanent representatives of the European Union today, looking ahead to the Home Affairs Council on 8 June, who are making great efforts to adjust their positions towards the presidency of Sweden. Stockholm wants to settle the game on the 27 member states’ positions before the end of its mandate (July). Diplomatic sources explain that Warsaw has opposed the forced relocation of asylum-seekers from the beginning, instead being subjected to immigration pressure given “preferences and capabilities of countries expressing solidarity”. It is proposing a “flexible” approach to help member states. . Warsaw’s breakthrough should therefore be read in the context of negotiating strategy. This is because the compromise proposed by Cheong Wa Dae does not stipulate “forced” relocation. And it was Sweden itself that designated it. “I would like to clarify that mandatory redistribution was not, is not and will not be in the proposal. It must be supported. Forced relocation is out of the question,” Schnergard stressed. However, the Southern Front grouped into Med5 clubs continues to seek redistribution.