At the European Council meeting on Thursday 18 December, the EU heads of state or government did not reject, despite disagreements, the proposed negotiating framework presented by the Danish Presidency for the Union’s future Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF 2028-2034) (see EUROPE 13768/24).
While this ‘Negotiating Box’ does not contain figures, it does guide the way in which future trade-offs will be approached. It takes up the main principles of the European Commission (see EUROPE 13682/1) and raises the question of the architecture of the budget - modernised, “simplified” and “more flexible”, as reaffirmed by the Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen - of its priorities and possible instruments.
Different priorities. A majority of Member States support a MFF 2028-2034 that gives priority to defence and competitiveness. However, agriculture and cohesion policy - the two traditional pillars of the European budget - must not be sacrificed, according to a number of countries. And these issues, like the role of the regions, the competitiveness fund and own resources, have yet to be addressed.
On his arrival, the Irish Prime Minister, Micheál Martin, supported the continuation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and considered that the level of funding currently envisaged was insufficient. Other countries, such as Latvia, highlighted the strong pressure from the farming community and expressed their dissatisfaction with the initial guidelines. Lithuania called for the strengthening of the eastern border and security to be made a central pillar of the next multiannual budget.
According to the President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, the proposed architecture does not address the issues relating to the CAP, and in particular the income guarantees for farmers. At the end of the Summit, he said that he, “with Italy, Poland, Ireland and a number of other partners” had asked the European Commission for these guarantees.
The Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez - who advocates an increase in the budget and the use of tools such as common debt - has reiterated the role of the budget as a means of responding to public concerns and social crises, particularly the housing crisis.
Opposition to rebates. In addition, although they were not initially included in the Danish proposal, rebates, which would make it possible to reduce the net contribution of certain Member States and relate to a logic of national budgetary balances - i.e. the question of who pays and who receives - became part of the debate (see EUROPE 13774/25).
This led to opposition from a number of countries, including Italy, Portugal, Poland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Greece and Slovenia, who argued that the introduction of references to rebates, even as an option, in the negotiating framework was perceived as incompatible with the stated ambition of a modernised budget.
Timetable. However, a consensus has emerged on the importance of putting the new Multiannual Financial Framework in place from the beginning of 2028 and reaching an agreement by the end of 2026, if the necessary conditions are met.
The next discussion is scheduled for the European Council meeting in March.
To see the European Council conclusions: https://aeur.eu/f/K3L (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry, with the editorial staff)