At the General Affairs Council on Tuesday 16 December, Member States’ European affairs ministers held an exchange of views on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028-2034, based on the draft negotiating box prepared by the Danish Presidency of the EU Council.
This non-binding document, which is still devoid of figures, “is not intended to finalise decisions” and aims to “establish a clear and balanced basis for further negotiations”, said the Danish Minister for European Affairs, Marie Bjerre, who chaired the discussions.
No decision was expected, at this stage, ahead of the European Council on 18 and 19 December.
An agreement by the end of 2026. In terms of method, the Danish Presidency invited ministers to focus on “two or three main political points”. The European Commissioner for the Budget, Piotr Serafin, reiterated the urgency of reaching an agreement by the end of 2026. Several Member States, including Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Slovenia, Germany, Latvia and Belgium, supported this objective. Germany even pointed out that a delay beyond 2026 would be “detrimental to the European Union” and the launch of programmes in 2028.
Other delegations, however, played down the urgency. France shared its desire to “achieve a good budget (...) before worrying about the timetable”.
Italy maintained that “the conditions are not right” as long as “crucial political questions” remain open.
Budget architecture. The modernisation of the budget architecture, with fewer headings and greater flexibility, was generally welcomed, particularly by Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. However, it should be noted that the reform of national and regional plans gave rise to considerable reservations.
Hungary denounced “parallel structures with no legal basis”, while Belgium called for a “real and substantial” simplification that takes better account of national institutional structures.
Rebates and correction mechanisms. The introduction of options to “maintain or abolish” the correction mechanisms on own resources focused the debate. Several countries, including Portugal, Poland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Greece and Slovenia, felt that the discussion was premature and not really in line with the objective of modernising the MFF.
Italy also opposed to the inclusion of rebates, which it believes would run counter to the logic of competitiveness and innovation that is supposed to guide the future budget.
Nevertheless, several net contributors have defended these mechanisms. Sweden considered that they would be “necessary in a final agreement” and supported a budget capped at around 1% of GNI.
The Netherlands, for its part, stated that “without corrections” there would be no basis for negotiation, while Austria welcomed the fact that this option was included in the text.
At a press conference, Marie Bjerre supported this approach. She stated that “some countries are talking about rebates, others about fair correction mechanisms” and that the Presidency had sought to reflect all positions in order to leave the choices open to leaders.
CAP, cohesion and competitiveness. A number of Member States also called for greater visibility for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and cohesion policy.
France insisted that they “retain their essence as Community policies”, rejecting any renationalisation. Romania said it “does not understand the added value” of a cohesion-agriculture grouping, while Greece warned against the risk of distorting the internal market.
On the subject of competitiveness, Italy, Finland and Sweden supported the creation of a European Competitiveness Fund, provided that access benefits all Member States.
Eastern borders and Ukraine. In addition, numerous Central and Eastern European States put the issue of the situation of the border regions with Russia and Belarus on the table, for it to be acknowledged as a priority in the future MFF, taking into account issues of security, military mobility and infrastructure. Sustained support for Ukraine was presented as a major imperative for the next budget.
On the subject of revenue, the Commission confirmed its preference for an ambitious own resources package. The issue provoked debate. Spain considered that, without genuine own resources and common debt, it would be impossible to meet all the European priorities.
The draft negotiating box: https://aeur.eu/f/jx0 (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)