Tense autumn in Brussels: Parliament and Commission at war over the EU budget

The autumn session of the European Parliament, which starts today in the Strasbourg hemicycle, is set to be a tense one due to the proposal made by the European Commission for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework. The way in which Ursula von der Leyen and the College of Commissioners decided on the distribution of European money for the next multiannual financial year of the community bloc has sparked strong reactions in all corners of the Union. The proposal made by the European Commission in two parts - the last one being last week when it presented its vision on the allocations for

the single market and customs, justice, research and training Euratom, on the overseas association, including Greenland and for the Pericles V program - has deeply dissatisfied the European deputies, who seem determined to reject the package initiated by Ursula von der Leyen.

The Vice-President of the European People's Party, Siegfried Mureşan, co-rapporteur and chief negotiator on behalf of Parliament for the respective budget, has repeatedly stated that MEPs do not agree with the Commission's proposal. In a recent message regarding the allocations for the 2028-2034 period for the Common Agricultural Policy, Siegfried Mureşan stated: "The European Parliament will reject the merging of agriculture and cohesion with other European funds. The European Commission has presented the official proposal for the future multiannual budget of the European Union 2028-2034. As the European Parliament's chief negotiator, I have made it clear: we will firmly support the new priorities - defence and competitiveness - but not at the expense of cohesion and agriculture. We will not accept a budget in which farmers or regions are put in competition for the same funds. Cohesion and agriculture must be adequately financed, at least at the current level, adjusted for the inflation rate. We cannot accept a proposal that dilutes the European approach and transforms cohesion policy into a centrally managed national plan. Our decision is that agriculture and cohesion are not negotiable. They remain clear priorities of the European Union - and so they must remain in the budget.”

In an analysis published by Euranet Plus News Agency at the end of last week, the opinion of former Portuguese Finance Minister Jorge Braga de Macedo is mentioned, who criticized the way Ursula von der Leyen managed the process of drawing up the budget proposal for the period 2028-2034. Jorge Braga de Macedo claims: "The press reports about this budget say that the Commission President did not "cheat' per se, but acted in an extremely autocratic way. Practically no one knew what was going to happen, and now those who see the results are not satisfied. Even the commissioners believe that the way in which this budget was drawn up was not transparent. It is a bad start. Even the commissioners were the first to express their dissatisfaction with the way the Commission President chose to proceed.”

• Half of the 2028-2034 budget allocated through national and regional plans

In fact, the initial presentation of this budget proposal, made in July, just one day before the European Parliament recess, was perceived as a "sneak" maneuver by MEPs. Ursula von der Leyen promised at the time to increase the budget to two trillion euros, or 1.26% of the Union's gross national income, but former Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius warned: "Obviously, there is a lot of hype around the presentation. Two trillion is a very inflated figure. I understand the desire to talk in round numbers, but I think it would be more useful to be honest with ourselves, with the public and with national governments and look at the real numbers, the amounts we will be left with if we fail to agree on a more ambitious plan. It is possible that we are actually talking about 1.7-1.8 trillion euros. That is quite different from two trillion."

According to Euranet Plus News Agency, criticism was also voiced by the Portuguese Minister of Agriculture, Jose Manuel Fernandes, who stated: "GDP is growing and therefore the budget is growing, and people claim that it has really grown. Anyway, it only represents 1% of the European Union's GDP. The US federal budget is 20% of GDP. And we, with 1%, want to do everything! It is not enough. We should join forces for common projects, and 1% is very, very little.”

However, the Commissioner for Budget, Piotr Serafin, explained that the architecture of the budget is changing radically: "The next multiannual financial framework will be organised around three core functions of the EU budget: support for Member States through national and regional partnership plans, support for beneficiaries and businesses through the Competitiveness Fund and support for partners through Global Europe.” Almost half of the resources will go to national and regional plans, over 20% in the competitiveness fund, and about 10% in the new "Global Europe” fund, intended to support Ukraine, sustainable development and the global role of the Union.

The proposed simplification raises suspicions. Bulgarian MEP Andrey Novakov told the quoted source: "What worries me is that the Commission has presented a proposal that combines different funds into one, creating regulations that should respond to diametrically opposed things. For example, a fund responsible for agriculture, regional development and supercomputers at the same time. But I think we will solve these issues in time.”

In contrast, Keit Pentus-Rosimannus, an expert at the European Court of Auditors, welcomes the initiative: "The current proposal brings together many programmes that were previously fragmented. In other words, those applying for European funding will no longer have to go through dozens and dozens of different programmes, combine them in several places and end up submitting dozens of reports. It should be much simpler. But this proposal already has a number of critics. For example, the Member States, where a very large proportion of European money is linked to agriculture, are not happy that these funds have been merged with those for cohesion. So there are both supporters and opponents of this simplification. We, at the Court of Auditors, see this merger as a logical direction.”

• EPP opposes centralisation of decisions for the 2028-2034 European budget

However, agriculture and cohesion policy remain minefields. Commissioner Piotr Serafin tried to calm spirits: "The national plans will not forget our farmers and fishermen. We will ensure that their incomes are protected by allocating euro300 billion for farmers and euro2 billion for fishermen.”

But beyond these protected amounts, the reality shows a 10% reduction in real terms for agriculture and even bigger cuts for cohesion. Andrey Novakov, a Bulgarian MEP, told the quoted source: "One of the red lines is that the EPP will not allow centralization of decisions. Regions must be part of the equation when it comes to how and where the money is spent. Cohesion policy is being put to increasingly severe tests. It seems that we will have to fight hard for funding for the poorest regions to remain in place. Note that many of the criticisms came from colleagues in the EPP, which will stick to this position: regions, mayors and people in cities must be involved in decisions on the destination of funds. And when money is allocated for cohesion - be it for roads, educational infrastructure, environmental protection, tourism and others - it must go where it is intended, and not be able to be redirected by some minister.”

On the other hand, the Commission's proposal also has its supporters. Former Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius argues: "You have to understand that this is the European Union budget. It is very strictly regulated and cannot be used to buy F16s or other defence systems. We should note that the defence innovation fund, to promote the defence industry, has increased tenfold, which is a real achievement. This sends a very clear signal to the market that the EU is committed to investing in the defence industry. From my point of view, this is a very positive thing.”

As for own resources, the Commission is counting on five new sources: the emissions trading system, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, but also taxes on e-waste, tobacco and large companies. Regarding the increase in tobacco taxes, Luxembourg's Finance Minister Gilles Roth expressed concern: "As Finance Minister, I must say that I will not be able to increase the revenues from cigarettes and tobacco by 1.3 billion euros overnight. If anyone has solutions for this, I am ready to show them to me."

The stage is thus set for an intense battle in the Parliament and the Council of the EU. MEPs want to ensure that they will not be marginalized in the decision-making process, and citizens demand transparency and real control over how the money is spent. With a budget proposal of almost two trillion euros, with overlapping crises and diverging priorities, the European Union is on the verge of a political and financial endurance test that will mark the entire next decade.