Sixteen EU member states joined forces on 26 May to push back against the European Commission’s proposed budget for 2028-2034. They warn that the plan shortchanges the bloc’s poorest regions.
The group—known as the Friends of Cohesion and comprising Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia—issued the Joint Declaration on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034 by the Friends of Cohesion ahead of a General Affairs Council meeting in Brussels. Romania coordinated the effort.
“Significant achievement today of The Friends of Cohesion Group. Under RO coordination, ahead of #GAC in Brussels, the group is issuing a Joint Declaration on #MFF 2028-2034,” Romania’s Foreign Minister Toiu Oana wrote on X.
“Unacceptable”
The declaration pulls no punches on what the signatories see as the central flaw in the Commission’s proposal. “In the Commission’s proposal, Cohesion Policy, CAP and the CFP are the only policies facing reductions in real terms. This is despite the overall increase in the size of the new MFF,” it states. The group calls this unacceptable. It argues that these are precisely the policies most visible to ordinary citizens and most directly tied to Treaty obligations.
The sixteen governments do not oppose the MFF’s overall ambition. The declaration acknowledges that “a more competitive, prosperous, stronger and safer Europe requires sufficient financing to match our political ambition, adapted to the new geopolitical reality,” and accepts the Commission’s proposed volume as a starting point for negotiations. Their quarrel is with the distribution of the money, not how much there is.
You might be interested
Beyond raw figures, the declaration takes aim at how the management of the funds. It insists that programming—deciding how to spend the allocated money—must stay with member states. “The proposed steering mechanism must not impact the programming prerogatives of the member states,” it says.
More pointedly, it warns that “recommendations should not automatically translate into obligations, as it would run contrary to the shared management principle and the place-based approach.” In plain terms: Brussels should not be able to dictate spending priorities through the back door.
A fight over control
The group also objects to a proposal that would carve out ten per cent of cohesion funds as a crisis reserve. The declaration argues that cohesion policy “should not turn into a systematic crisis tool, replacing other EU instruments to this purpose,” and calls for a reduction to the reserve. Any reprogramming of ongoing measures, it adds, should remain voluntary for member states.
On the practical mechanics of spending, the declaration calls for maintaining the N+3 rule for decommitments, balanced commitment and payment profiles, and adequate pre-financing and co-financing rates. The signatories regard these conditions as essential to ensuring funds find effective use rather than lose to bureaucratic attrition.
In the Commission’s proposal, Cohesion Policy, CAP and the CFP are the only policies facing reductions in real terms. — Joint Declaration on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034 by the Friends of Cohesion
The declaration also enters the thornier territory of how the EU raises money. The group says it is open to new own resources, provided they are “genuine, fair, simple and not regressive.” On rebates, the discounts some wealthier member states receive on their contributions, the declaration is blunt: “The abolition of rebates linked to the GNI based own resource is a must. There is no political or economic rationale for re-introducing them on the revenue side of the EU budget.”
A plea for fairness
The signatories also float ideas on the financing side. A more gradual repayment of NextGenerationEU debt and new joint borrowing for loan instruments—such as the proposed Catalyst Europe facility—should, the declaration argues, fund investments and strategic autonomy over the long term.
The declaration closes on a constructive note, with the group saying it stands “ready to contribute constructively to reaching a balanced compromise that benefits the entire European Union,” and that its “shared objective is to achieve a budget that is both modern and responsive to the varying needs of member states and regions.” Whether that olive branch is enough to bridge the gap with the Commission—and with the net contributor states who tend to see things rather differently—remains an open question.
