Roads get built. Hospitals get equipped. Farms get funded. All of that is now at stake. The European Parliament is pushing back against Commission plans that could fundamentally reshape how EU money reaches the regions that need it most.
MEPs negotiating the next long-term budget (MFF) are calling for €307 billion for regional policy. That is more than 25 per cent above the European Commission’s proposed €228 billion. The battleground is the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPP), a new structure that would bundle 540 previously separate programmes, including cohesion policy, agriculture, fisheries, and internal security, into one.
Formally, Parliament has little say over the overall size of the budget. That requires unanimous agreement among member states. But it does shape how money is spent. MEP Andrey Novakov (EPP/BGR), who is leading the NRPP negotiations, hosted a breakfast meeting last week to rally support. The turnout, he joked, proved the topic’s importance: “Only a free breakfast doesn’t fill a room.”
Parliament’s limited hand
Parliament has already signalled it wants a budget roughly ten per cent larger than the Commission proposed. Member states are unlikely to agree. The Netherlands and Germany firmly oppose any increase in contributions.
Mr Novakov is leading the negotiations on the NRPP. The proposal would merge 540 previously separate funding areas, including cohesion policy, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), fisheries, and internal security, into a single framework. Parliament fiercely opposes the merger.
You might be interested
The matter has become arguably the most contested part of the budget negotiations. “Our position remains clear: Commissions come and go. Parliaments come and go. Presidents and governments come and go. But regional challenges persist, and so must a strong EU cohesion policy,” Mr Novakov said.
Politically sensitive
Karlo Ressler (EPP/HRV), co-rapporteur of the file, noted that Parliament fears the new structure could weaken the role of local authorities. “This file is not only large and complex in scale, it is also politically sensitive,” he said.
Mr Novakov echoed that sentiment. “One fund, one European Commissioner, one minister: we see a risk of centralisation.”
For that reason, MEPs want stronger oversight of spending. They are pushing for a clause that would make access to EU funds conditional on member states respecting agreements with regions, municipalities, and cities. The model is similar to the existing rule-of-law mechanism.
MEPs also want to ensure that agricultural and fisheries subsidies remain protected, and that countries along the EU’s eastern border receive additional support. That, however, requires more money.
To finance that increase, the negotiators propose reducing spending on EU budgetary buffers. Cohesion funding would increase substantially. “If we ask more from the budget, we need to allocate more resources to it,” Mr Novakov added.
Not everyone backs the draft report. Members of the Socialists and Democrats group argue that it pays insufficient attention to social funds. MEP Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR/NLD) also argued that it does not go far enough in safeguarding the future of the agricultural sector.
The money question
Most MEPs look set to back the proposal. Reaching agreement is considerably easier in Parliament than among national governments. Member states remain deeply divided, and unlike Parliament, national leaders must unanimously approve the financial framework.
Several countries, alongside much of Parliament, argue that the EU should expand the MFF. The 16-member coalition known as the “Friends of Cohesion”, which includes Italy and Poland, wants to prevent cuts to social and agricultural spending. Finland, Austria and other net contributors, by contrast, insist that the budget should become more efficient, more targeted, and above all smaller.
According to Mr Novakov, however, the debate focuses too narrowly on who pays more and who receives more. “What kind of equipment do you see when you walk into a Bulgarian hospital renovated with European subsidies? Dutch-made Philips equipment,” he said. “Ultimately, this is a Single Market.”
It is not charity. It is not about helping someone in need. It is part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
— Andrey Novakov, MEP (EPP/BGR)
In Mr Novakov’s view, member states should stop arguing over whether the budget should be larger or smaller. “Cohesion policy connects member states and compensates for imbalances created by the Single Market,” he argued. “It is not charity. It is not about helping someone in need. It is part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
Erasmus on the table
Alongside the cohesion debate, Parliament also set out its position on Erasmus+, the EU’s flagship student exchange programme that allows millions of Europeans to study, train, and work abroad. Under the rapporteurship of MEP Bogdan Zdrojewski (EPP/POL), Parliament is calling for €47.39 billion for Erasmus+ in the next budget, significantly above the Commission’s proposed €40.8 billion.
The discussion comes as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced last week that Hungarian universities and students will once again be able to fully participate in the programme from the next academic year. The EU restricted Hungary’s access to Erasmus+ over concerns about academic governance and the rule of law.
Ms von der Leyen described Erasmus+ as “one of the great trademarks of the European Union”. “Entire generations have been shaped by Erasmus: friendships, families, freedom,” she said. “With Erasmus, young Europeans fall in love with another language, culture, country, and its citizens. In doing so, they understand that our diversity is our strength.”
