“No country is ready to accept” the proposed post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework, warned Denmark’s Minister for European Affairs, Marie Bjerre, at the conclusion of a meeting of European Affairs ministers on Friday 18 July.
“In a discussion like this, we focus on what we don’t agree on”, admitted the Dutch ambassador to the EU, Pieter Jan Kleiwege de Zwaan.
During this preliminary exchange of views on negotiations that will last until 2027, the main points of disagreement between the EU Member States, among themselves and with the European Commission, on the proposed Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034 (see EUROPE 13682/1) concern: the total amount of the MFF, the use of debt through the creation of new instruments, the adoption of new own resources and the use of conditionality in national and regional partnership plans. The new architecture of the budget has also raised a number of questions.
The amounts. The so-called ‘frugal’ EU countries did not waited long before voicing their opposition to a budget of almost €2 trillion (see EUROPE 13683/6). The watchword is clear for Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, but also Belgium and Luxembourg: national budgets are already under severe pressure.
In a “period of national budget consolidation”, Austria does not see itself “explaining to [its] citizens why the European Commission is presenting [such] a budget”, explained the Austrian Federal Minister for Europe, Claudia Plakolm. In her view, “if countries are asked to make savings, the EU must do the same”.
Several of the countries mentioned above are still deeply concerned about the European Commission’s proposal to abolish the EU budgetary correction mechanism, known as the ‘rebate’ mechanism, which compensates the highest net contributors to the EU budget. Austria explicitly called for it to be maintained, while Germany stressed that abolishing it would be “unacceptable” and the Netherlands said that its contribution to the EU budget was “completely disproportionate”. On the other hand, Luxembourg’s Deputy Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs, Xavier Bettel, considered that the mechanism should be scrapped.
Other Member States, who were expecting more, will be fighting to at least maintain the current level of ambition. According to Spain, this budget is “not up to the challenges facing the Union”, and Slovenia “had asked for a budget equivalent to the current budget plus the (European) Recovery Plan, i.e. 1.8% of GNI rather than 1.26%”.
Own resources. The discussion on new own resources is one of the most eagerly awaited and divisive of the negotiations for the post-2027 MFF. The unanimity required and strong opposition from Member States have prevented the adoption of a package of three new own resources in recent years. The Commission’s proposal of 16 July 2025 includes five of them: ETS1, CBAM, uncollected electronic waste, excise duty on tobacco and a tax on companies with an annual turnover in excess of €100 million (see EUROPE 13682/1). The European Commission has assured that its proposal would not lead to an increase in national contributions, but that this would require the adoption of new own resources.
The Commission is also proposing to recalibrate ETIAS (European Travel Information and Authorisation System) fee from €7 to €20 (see EUROPE 13683/10).
Sweden did not wait two days to vote against the five. Germany, Ireland and Italy pointed out that the tax on companies ran counter to the objective of competitiveness advocated by the EU. These companies will then decide to invest outside Europe, leaving the EU without “the slightest tax revenue”, according to Germany.
Several Member States have reiterated their preference for an EU budget based on gross national income rather than one made up of more own resources. Estonia asked to see whether this would bring “added value” and Lithuania said it was prepared to “increase [its] national contribution”, rather than have additional own resources.
Most of the resources proposed by the Commission are “existing national taxes” and would therefore represent an “increase in national contributions”. Only Poland and France really supported the adoption of new own resources.
Debt. The flexibility mechanisms devised by the European Commission on the basis of loans that Member States could take out are not to the liking of the so-called ‘frugal’ countries.
“We cannot have a programme financed by debt. I am thinking in particular of the elements within the framework of national and regional partnerships, as well as the crisis response mechanism”, warned Germany’s Minister of State for Europe, Gunther Krichbaum.
The crisis mechanism would enable EU countries to respond to unforeseen circumstances, while loans granted under national and regional plans would enable investment in European priorities (defence, energy infrastructure).
Austria saw this as a way of “shifting the burden onto future generations”, while Finland pointed out that the loan taken out under the European Recovery Plan would already have to be repaid. For Spain, on the other hand, not taking out new loans would mean missing “the opportunity to generate a budgetary margin to finance European policies”.
The new structure. The creation of national and regional partnership plans has raised questions rather than outright opposition from Member States. Romania, for example, wondered whether this would increase the administrative burden on EU countries.
But the main doubts relate to the future of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Cohesion Policy, with their merging into these plans. Considering that the rules and objectives of these two policies were “different”, the Czech Republic prefers to see them separated.
Warnings are already appearing about the governance of these plans. For France, the Minister for European Affairs, Benjamin Haddad, insisted on maintaining the “institutional balance and [the] steering role of the Council of Member States”. His Polish counterpart, Adam Szlapka, warned that the plans should be negotiated “on the basis of key criteria and not at the discretion of the Commission”. It will be up to the European Commission to convince the Member States by 2027, as they have no intention of letting it off the hook. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)