Today, the European Parliament’s budget committee is set to adopt its position on the EU’s next long-term budget in a vote that will define its red lines ahead of negotiations with member states. At the heart of Parliament’s stance is a familiar but increasingly contested demand: ambition without trade-offs. An approach that will likely not sit well with member states
Negotiating on behalf of the Parliament, co-rapporteurs Siegfried Mureşan (EPP/RO) and Carla Tavares (S&D/PR) insist that the EU must not choose between new priorities—such as security, defence, and competitiveness—and traditional policies like agriculture, cohesion, and social spending. Instead, they argue, the Union must be equipped to deliver on both.
Parliament broadly aligns with the European Commission’s push to strengthen funding for new strategic priorities. But where the Commission seeks to rebalance spending, MEPs are pushing for expansion. Rather than replacing existing programmes, Parliament wants to see new priorities layered on top of longstanding commitments.
This is particularly visible in its defence of agriculture and cohesion funding. Across political groups, there is strong resistance to cuts. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), for instance, would be reinforced rather than reduced, with Parliament backing a package of around €433 billion—significantly above the Commission’s proposed €386 billion. For Parliament, core policies are not up for negotiation.
You might be interested
Loan repayments
An equally contentious issue is the repayment of the EU’s post-pandemic recovery borrowing. Under the Commission’s proposal, repayments for NextGenerationEU would come from within the EU budget. Parliament rejects this approach outright.
MEPs argue that financing debt repayments from the MFF would effectively cancel out any nominal budget increase, putting pressure on programmes and undermining key policy areas. Instead, they maintain their long-standing position that these costs should be covered “above and beyond” the MFF ceilings, as Mr Mureşan put it.
In practical terms, this translates into support for a budget set at 1.7% of EU Gross National Income, with the full amount reserved for programme spending. Debt repayments, in Parliament’s view, should be financed through new EU own resources — an issue that will remain highly sensitive among member states.
Competitiveness and investment priorities
On spending priorities, Parliament is calling for a broad reinforcement across headings. It backs a 10% overall increase in funding, spread across national and regional programmes, global action, and competitiveness.
The latter is emerging as a key battleground. The position proposes a substantial boost to competitiveness, with allocations rising from €207 billion to €234 billion. Within this envelope, targeted investments are foreseen in areas such as health and education, with Erasmus+ funding increasing from €36 billion to €42 billion.
Parliament’s role
The rapporteurs also made another issue clear: while it supports simplification of the budget, that should not mean renationalisation of spending programmes, especially in sensitive areas such as agriculture. Likewise, flexibility “must not come at the expense of predictability or parliamentary oversight”.
Meanwhile, the rapporteurs warned that in times of geopolitical turmoil, the next Multiannual Financial Framework must be designed not just to respond to crises, but to strengthen Europe’s long-term resilience and competitiveness. In their view, the “EU risks falling short of its ambitions if it fails to match them with adequate funding”.
If approved by the budget committee today, the aim is to adopt Parliament’s position at the plenary session later this month in Strasbourg. From there, Parliament can enter into trilogue negotiations with the Commission and Council, which are set to take place at the end of the year.
