On Tuesday 28 April, the European Parliament adopted its position on the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) by a comfortable majority (370 votes in favour, 201 against, 84 abstentions), the result of an agreement between the political groups forming the ‘von der Leyen’ majority.
By not approving any of the hundred or so amendments tabled by The Left, PfE and ESN groups, MEPs are endorsing the position of the Committee on Budgets (BUDG), which recommends an MFF of 1.27% of EU GNI, or just over €2 trillion in current prices (see EUROPE 13849/14). This increase of around 10% in the overall envelope (i.e. €197.30 billion to be divided equally between the first three headings) compared to the Commission’s initial position is made possible by moving only the repayment of the debt generated by the Next Generation EU recovery plan outside the budgetary ceilings.
“Repaying the debt should not be at the expense of the beneficiaries of European programmes”, said Siegfried Mureşan (EPP, Romanian), co-rapporteur on this dossier, during the plenary session debate. Describing the European Parliament’s proposal as “sufficient, predictable and transparent”, he warned Member States that doing more at European level with less money is a “myth”, and that those who advocate this approach actually want to “weaken Europe”.
“Europe is not giving up”, said Carla Tavares (S&D, Portuguese), European Parliament co-rapporteur. She spoke out “against anything that leads to the renationalisation” of European policies and would jeopardise the European dimension of budget spending. In her view, the EU must continue to support macroeconomic convergence and protect the European social model by safeguarding a budgetary envelope both for the outermost regions and for the ‘European Social Fund’ under heading 1.
Within the European Parliament, there is a strong consensus on the following position: the funding of new European priorities - migration, defence, innovation - must not be at the expense of traditional priorities, such as agriculture and cohesion, which have proved their worth over time.
Three new own resources. And, since the Member States are reluctant to increase their national contributions to the EU budget to fund all these policies, new own resources are “inevitable”, said Mr Mureşan, listing the three new resources proposed by MEPs, in addition to those put forward by the Commission: “digital levy, cryptocurrencies and online gaming and gambling”. We can’t reduce subsidies to farmers while offering “a free ride to the digital giants” benefiting from the Single Market, he added.
Last Friday, at the end of the European leaders’ first discussion on the post-2027 MFF, the President of the European Council, António Costa, noted that the Member States were open to discussing new own resources, in particular those suggested by the European Parliament (see EUROPE 13856/1).
On the sidelines of the plenary session, Jean-Marc Germain (S&D, French) said that France would try to assemble a coalition of countries in favour of own resources, following a meeting the same day with the French Secretary of State for European Affairs, Benjamin Haddad.
Go fast. Speaking in the Chamber, the European Commissioner for the Budget, Piotr Serafin, like Mr Costa, stressed the importance of reaching a unanimous agreement by the Member States before the end of 2026, because “one should not expect an easier world in the future”.
Noting the convergence of positions between the European Commission and Parliament on issues such as own resources, he warned MEPs that: “We cannot afford everything”, in fiscal terms. “Member States are under pressure. This inevitably means that we have to make choices and that we have to finance these choices responsibly”, he asserted, raising the question of the “added value” of European spending.
However, he pointed out that some expenditure at European level does enable Member States to make savings. This is the case of the “fourfold” increase in “the protection of the EU’s external borders”, an operation which, according to him, will prove to be “much more economical than the introduction of controls at the EU’s internal borders”.
NRPPs. Like the Member States, the European Parliament is not calling into question the creation of National and Regional Partnership Plans financed by a single ‘European Fund’ to implement several policies such as agriculture, cohesion, social affairs and migration.
According to the European Parliament, this heading 1 ‘European social model and quality of life’ would be allocated around half of the EU budget, or €997.37 billion. In particular, agriculture would receive €433.01 billion, fisheries €7.29 billion, cohesion €306.93 billion, and the ‘European Social Fund’ €124.19 billion.
“We also need a certain degree of flexibility in the management of the envelopes”, explained Mr Serafin, stressing that the NRPPs will help “not to weaken cohesion policy, but to use the funds in the best possible way”.
Speaking to the press, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola said that the EU “needs the ability to act fast”, noting that the current reserve for solidarity and emergency aid regularly runs out of funds. “Floods and fires cannot wait for budget revisions”, she argued.
MEPs also maintain the possibility for Member States to borrow up to €150 billion from the new ‘Catalyst Europe’ instrument to increase budgetary resources to finance certain Heading 1 policies. According to them, this mechanism will serve to “fill the gaps in investment in decarbonisation, digitalisation and economic resilience”.
With regard to the rule of law, the European Parliament remains adamant on extending the conditional granting of European funds to respect for the fundamental values of the EU. Fabienne Keller (Renew Europe, French) welcomed the European Parliament’s “firm” stance on “protecting the Rule of law in the budget and for the budget”.
Criticism from opposition groups. During the debate, The Left group criticised the post-2027 MFF proposal which, according to João Oliveira, favours “the arms race at the expense of economic and territorial cohesion”. What’s more, the EU is going to impose reforms on the Member States, he asserted.
At the other end of the Chamber, the eurosceptic and europhobic groups are criticising the increase in the MFF.
On behalf of the PfE group, France’s Jordan Bardella condemned the “headlong rush” to demand “a staggering increase of almost 60%” in the EU budget. He advocated cutting unnecessary bureaucracy and operating costs, stopping EU foreign aid - particularly to Ukraine - when “the money (...) is not there at home”, safeguarding farmers’ subsidies and stepping up the fight against illegal immigration.
Bogdan Rzońca (ECR, Polish) is of the same view. Advocating budgetary “austerity” for the EU, he rejected any debate on “increased taxation of the EU”, even though MEPs have no mandate to do this.
To see the European Parliament’s position on the 2028-2034 MFF: https://aeur.eu/f/lq6 (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)