Money talks: What the EU-27 want from the next budget

The European Commission is set to present its big pitch for the EU’s 2028–2034 budget on Wednesday, promising to drastically ‘simplify’ and completely rethink how the bloc spends money. 

The current €1.2 trillion amount is locked in for seven years, divided into 16 different clusters and over 50 budget lines. Roughly a third goes to farmers via the Common Agricultural Policy, another to regional development in Cohesion funds, and the rest to research, foreign policy, industry, and administration. 

But any overhaul is not up to Brussels alone. Every spending line in the so-called ‘multi-year financial framework’ (MFF) requires unanimous sign-off from both the Parliament and national capitals. 

Euractiv asked all 27 governments and combed through position papers to get their views on five crunch questions: 

 

1. Size: Should the budget be increased?
2. Own resources: Should new EU-level income sources, like a carbon tax or joint debt, be introduced?
3. National envelopes: Should the funds reserved for farmers (CAP, two parts) and lagging regions (cohesion, four parts) merge into national cash pots?
4. Reform-for-cash: Should EU countries or regions be forced to make EU-friendly reforms to access EU funds?
5. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Should CAP and cohesion funds be reduced? 

 

In a nutshell: 

• Thirteen countries, including France, support a bigger budget. Seven countries, including Germany, oppose an increase.
• Twelve countries, including France and Germany, support introducing ‘new own’ resources. Six countries are sceptical.
• Nineteen countries, including France and Germany, reject an outright merger of cohesion and CAP. But they may still favour a move in that direction, as long as their favourite programmes survive in some shape or form.
• Thirteen countries, including Germany and France, are in favour of increased cash-for-reforms in the next budget. Nine are against.
• Fifteen countries reject cuts to cohesion and CAP.

The budget needs to be approved unanimously.

 

Austria 

The government’s position has not yet been finalised, officials told Euractiv. 

 

Belgium 

• Bigger budget: Lean no. “EU-level spending should remain focused on areas where it clearly delivers added value,” Deputy Prime Minister Van Peteghem told Euractiv in a statement.

• Own resources: Lean no. “Belgium has not yet adopted fixed positions” but expects EU institutions to “pursue greater efficiency and fiscal discipline in budget execution.” 

• National envelopes: No. “Belgium believes CAP should remain a separate instrument,” with its own internal distribution key.  

• Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. “Belgium supports a performance-based approach” if it doesn’t increase administrative burdens and respects the regional administration architecture of member countries. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts: No position. 

 

Bulgaria 

• Bigger budget: Yes. The next MFF should “at least” equal the current one and the EU’s €650 billion Covid recovery fund together (RFF), reads a position non-paper seen by Euractiv. 

• Own resources: Lean yes. “We remain open to introducing genuine new own resources,” the paper reads. 

• National envelopes: No. CAP should have a dedicated budget and retain its two-pillar structure, but Bulgaria supports more flexibility between the two pillars. 

• Reform-for-cash: No. The Cohesion Fund should be preserved in its current form, with funding not tied to reform commitments. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Both areas are important.  

 

Croatia 

• Bigger budget: Yes. “Croatia advocates an ambitious and robust budget,” the government told Euractiv.

• Own resources: No position.

• National envelopes and reform-for-cash: Lean no. Greece is among the 14 countries that rallied against making regional funding conditional on national reforms in early July. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Zagreb wants a budget that “ensures a strong cohesion and CAP policy.” 

 

Cyprus 

Cyprus did not respond to Euractiv’s request in time for publication. 

 

Czechia 

• Bigger budget: Lean yes. Czechia “is ready to discuss a limited increase of the long-term EU budget,” the government told Euractiv.  

• New own resources: Lean no. “Czechia is in general reserved towards the introduction of new own resources.” 

• National envelopes: No. “We strongly support maintaining a separate CAP fund.” Czechia is “cautious towards the possible in-depth reforms” for cohesion. 

• Reform-for-cash: Lean no. Czechia is “cautious” about greater focus on reforms. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. Cohesion is described as a crucial investment tool. No position given on CAP. 

 

Denmark 

• Bigger budget: Lean yes. Despite being traditionally frugal, Denmark is open to a bigger budget.

• New own resources: Lean yes. “You’re not going hear us say… that we exclude sources of financing such as common debt from the beginning,” Copenhagen’s ambassador to the EU said.

• All other questions: No position. Denmark does not want to share any position, citing its role in leading Council budget negotiations during its presidency, officials told Euractiv. 

 

Estonia 

• Bigger budget: Yes. Estonia supports a larger EU budget and is ready to contribute more, along with other EU countries, reads a position paper seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: Lean yes. “New sources of revenue could be considered if they offer added value” and don’t disproportionally burden poorer countries, reads the paper. 

• National envelopes: Lean yes. Estonia favours streamlining funds and “avoiding overlaps”, but prefers adapting existing instruments to creating new ones. 

• Reform-for-cash: Yes. Cohesion “must continue to support the implementation of structural reforms” and should be aligned with country-specific recommendations. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. New priorities “cannot be carried out at the expense of a significant reduction in existing areas.” 

 

Finland 

• Bigger budget: No. “The future MFF must be kept at a reasonable level,” reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: Lean yes. The proposals to divert funds from carbon levies (CBAM and ETS 2) are promising, Finland says.  

• National envelopes: Lean yes. “Finland is open to different models for reforming the future CAP” but insists that farmers’ income support must remain a coherent whole. 

• Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Finland is “open to a performance-based approach” but it should not be modelled after the EU’s Covid recovery loan.  

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? Yes. “Cohesion funding should be decreased” and national co-financing of direct payments to farmers can be explored. 

 

France

• Bigger budget: Yes. Macron previously floated the idea of doubling the budget, and a French position paper from March reads that “it is essential to invest in European priorities by scaling up.”  

• New own resources: Yes. “The introduction of new own resources is a sine qua non condition for an agreement,” reads the paper. 

• National envelopes: Lean no.  France is open to merging cohesion funds, but CAP should have a dedicated budget and “maintain the two pillars.”  

• Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Strengthening the performance-based approach with a role for national plans is a “potentially interesting avenue.”  

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. The EU needs a CAP with the “ambition and resources commensurate with the stakes involved.”  

 

Germany 

• Bigger budget: No. There is “no basis for increasing the volume of the MFF in relation to economic strength,” reads a German position paper seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: Lean yes. Germany will “constructively examine” proposals for new EU income sources. 

• National envelopes: No. CAP and Cohesion should remain distinct policy areas, with rural development kept as an “integral” element of CAP.  

• Reform-for-cash: Yes. Cohesion should “provide stronger incentives for national reform measures.”

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. CAP should have an “appropriate budget” to meet high demands. Cohesion funds should be adjusted to be “more suitable” for future needs. 

 

Greece 

• Bigger budget: No position. 

• New own resources: No position.  

• National envelopes and reform-for-cash: Lean no. Greece is among the 14 countries that rallied against making regional funding conditional on national reforms in early July. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. CAP and cohesion are the top Greek priorities, a source close to the matter told Euractiv.

 

Hungary 

• Bigger budget: No. Budapest does not support the proposed changes to the budget or new revenue sources, reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: No. Hungary supports the current system without any modification. 

• National envelopes: No. A flexible MFF “with fewer budgetary headings and spending programmes” would, in Budapest’s view, shift too much power to the Commission at the expense of member countries. 

• Reform-for-cash: No. It would be “the exact opposite of what is actually needed: greater flexibility for member states,” not the Commission. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. Cohesion should have a “dedicated and robust” budget, and CAP should be “at least on the same level.” 

 

Ireland 

• Bigger budget: No. Ireland is “committed to financing our fair share,” according to a position paper seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: Lean no. Dublin is “willing to consider proposals for genuine new own resources,” but opposes the proposed  EU income based on corporate profits. 

• National envelopes: No. CAP should remain separate from national plans, with its two-pillar structure and independent governing structure.  

• Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Ireland sees a role for performance-based EU funding to deliver EU objectives.  

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. “Ireland calls for a robustly funded CAP.” 

 

Italy 

• Bigger budget: No position. 

• New own resources: No position. 

• National envelopes: No. Italy will fight to maintain both CAP and cohesion in their current form, European Minister Tommaso Foti said on 6 July. 

• Reform-for-cash: No. Common objectives would drastically reduce Italy’s ability to design its own interventions, Foti argued.

• CAP/Cohesion cuts: No.  

 

Latvia 

• Bigger budget: Yes. Latvia supports an increased MFF, the government told Euractiv. 

• New own resources: Lean yes. Riga is open to discussing various options, including new own resources and joint borrowing. 

• National envelopes: Lean no. “Latvia is in principle open” but sceptical of “over-simplification… Cohesion and CAP should remain separate allocations.” 

• Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. But “the focus should be on reforms that contribute to the effectiveness of the planned investments.” 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts: No position.  

 

Lithuania 

• Bigger budget: Lean yes. “There is a need to discuss increasing the volume of the EU budget”, reads a Lithuania position paper seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: Lean no. A larger budget could be financed with the current system or by introducing new income sources. 

• National envelopes: No. It is appropriate with “some adjustments,” but drastic reforms should be avoided. The core principles of cohesion should be maintained.  

• Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. But the Covid loan model should not be extended to policy areas unrelated to national reform agendas, such as CAP. 
• CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. Vilnius calls for “adequate funding” for CAP and “sufficient cohesion budget for all EU regions. 

 

Luxembourg 

• Bigger budget: Lean yes. “The MFF is a vital instrument” and “it is essential to take into account new realities when defining future budgetary priorities”, Luxembourg’s government responded. 

• All other questions: No position. 

 

Malta 

• Bigger budget: No position. “Malta’s position on the size of the MFF will be determined by the composition of the EU budget as a whole,” reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: Lean yes. Valletta is open to the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) but strongly opposes any move for EU-level taxation or company profits-based income. 

• National envelopes: Lean no. “While flexibility is an essential element of any budget, it must not come at the expense of the stability and predictability of investment programmes,” reads the non-paper. 

• Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Malta is in favour under certain circumstances. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? Yes/no. Malta wants CAP direct payments to be co-financed by national budgets to “free up EU budgetary resources.” But increased spending on priorities like defence “must not come at the expense” of cohesion policy.

 

Netherlands 

• Bigger budget: No. Ambitious EU policy is possible within current budgetary parameters and we should “also look at what the EU could do less of,” a Dutch position paper from March reads. 

• New own resources: Lean yes. The Netherlands is open to new EU income sources and notes that emissions-related tools like CBAM and ETS are less costly for Dutch taxpayers than traditional GNI-based contributions. 

• National envelopes: Lean yes. The government is “receptive” to the idea of a national plan for distributing funds. 

• Reforms-for-cash: Lean yes. The Netherlands is “open to exploring” more performance-based budgeting and “considers it important that member states implement reforms that strengthen their economies” and the bloc. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean yes. The Netherlands prefers to limit spending in general, but wants more for competitiveness and defence. 

 

Poland 

• Bigger budget: Yes. Warsaw says the EU’s financial ambitions should be “significantly higher than before,” according to a non-paper seen by Euractiv.

• New own resources: Lean yes. Poland supports the debate on new EU-level revenue sources, but insists on expanding the budget rather than replacing existing funding. This also must not overly burden less affluent countries.

• National envelopes: No. CAP should keep its own dedicated budget, based on its “well-established and proven” two-pillar structure. 

• Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Some inspiration can be taken from the EU’s Covid recovery loan, but must have a “thematically closer link” to the cash, and reforms “should not contribute to excessive centralisation and merging of instruments.” 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. The share of the budget allocated to CAP and cohesion should not be reduced. 

 

Portugal 

• Bigger budget: Yes. The EU budget must go “well beyond the current GNI threshold,” according to a Portuguese position paper seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: Yes. New EU-level revenue is “vital” to relieve pressure on the spending side of the budget. 

• National envelopes: No. “Cohesion and CAP funds should remain autonomous,” the paper reads, with CAP “built upon its two-pillar structure.” 

• Reform-for-cash: No. Portugal wants to keep core cohesion principles. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. Portugal defends CAP and cohesion as crucial for the EU project. 

 

Romania 

• Bigger budget: No position.  

• New own resources: No position.  

• National envelopes and reform-for-cash: Lean no. Romania is among the 14 countries that rallied against making regional funding conditional on national reforms in early July. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts: No position.  

Romania did not respond to Euractiv’s request for comments. 

 

Slovakia 

• Bigger budget: No position 

• Own resources: No position 

• National envelopes: No. “It is essential to maintain a dedicated EU cohesion policy” and “we fundamentally reject the centralisation of EU cohesion policy,” reads a Slovak position paper on cohesion policy seen by Euractiv.

• Reform-for-cash: Yes. Slovakia “supports the modernisation of EU cohesion policy” and “strengthening the link between cohesion policy and the European Semester,” an EU framework for coordinating economic and social policies.

• CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Cohesion should remain a “major European investment policy with an adequate budget”

Slovenia 

• Bigger budget: Yes. Slovenia wants a budget “comparable in size” to the current budget and the €650 billion Covid loan combined, reads a position paper seen by Euractiv. 

• Own resources: Yes. “All possible options should be explored,” the paper reads. 

• National envelopes: No. “Specificities of individual thematic areas included in the programme should be recognised.” 

• Reform-for-cash: Lean no. “Subsidiarity and Member States’ ownership of the reforms should be ensured.” 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. The next MFF should ensure that CAP and cohesion funds have “comparable levels of financing”.  

 

Spain

• Bigger budget: Yes. The EU budget should be “at least 2% of the EU’s annual GDP,” reads a Spanish non-paper, dated February, seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: Yes. Spain supports new ‘genuine’ EU own resources, meaning that they should contribute to increasing the budget rather than replacing direct contributions.

• National envelopes: Lean no. National envelopes encompassing a number of EU policies “may not be the most effective way to achieve a simpler and more focused budget”, and CAP should maintain its two-pillar structure. 

• Reform-for-cash: No position. 

• CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. Spain “firmly believes in the importance of Cohesion” and CAP must have a “sufficient and adequate” budget. 

 

Sweden 

• Bigger budget: No. Sweden’s budget restrictive stance remains firm: “The EU budget as a share of GNI for regular expenditure should continue to be around 1%,” reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. 

• New own resources: No. Sweden sees no need for – and is critical of – new EU-level resources. 

• National envelopes: Lean yes. Stockholm wants the EU budget to have a simpler structure and fewer thematic areas and programmes. 
• Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. “Sweden supports, in principle, an implementation model based on performance-based budgeting.” 
• CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean yes. “Investments in existing or new areas need to be matched by cuts in other areas.”

 

Eddy Wax, Nicoletta Ionta, Charles Szumski,  Aurélie Pugnet, and Barbara Zmušková contributed to reporting.

(mm)