The European Parliament’s budget committee has set out its opening negotiating position on the EU’s next long-term budget, backing a larger financial envelope and sharper political priorities. More money, more control, and fewer compromises on core agricultural, regional and research programmes.
Members of the Parliament’s Budgets (BUDG) committee voted on Wednesday to endorse an interim report drafted by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) Siegfried Mureșan (Romania, EPP) and Carla Tavares (Portugal, Socialists and Democrats) on the EU’s new long-term budget from 2028-2034 – the Multiannual Financial Framework, or MFF, in EU speak. The report sets out Parliament’s initial demands for what is one of the bloc’s most politically sensitive negotiations.
More money
At its core is a simple request: more money. MEPs propose that the EU budget should amount to 1.27% of EU gross national income, roughly a 10% increase compared with the European Commission’s July 2025 proposal. They also want debt repayment costs linked to the NextGenerationEU post-COVID recovery fund kept outside the main spending ceilings.
The aim is to preserve room for policy spending while protecting programmes from being squeezed by rising debt servicing and inflation. In practice, MEPs argue, the current proposal would amount to an investment freeze at a time when demands on the EU are growing.
Those demands are multiple. Lawmakers point to Russia’s war in Europe’s neighbourhood, persistent economic competitiveness gaps, climate and biodiversity pressures, and rising social needs. The budget, they argue, must remain an investment instrument rather than a tool for administrative consolidation.
More control
The committee also draws clear lines on structure. While it broadly accepts the Commission’s architecture for the next MFF, it rejects any attempt to merge major funding streams into broad national envelopes. MEPs warn against what they see as a “re-nationalisation” of EU spending, arguing it would weaken transparency and dilute EU-wide priorities.
Fewer compromises
Instead, they call for distinct and protected allocations for key pillars: cohesion and regional policy, the Common Agricultural Policy, the European Social Fund, and programmes covering migration and security. Regional and local authorities, they insist, must remain directly involved in implementation.
At the same time, Parliament is not resisting new priorities. Defence, competitiveness, innovation and the green transition are welcomed as expanded areas of EU action. But MEPs insist this must be matched with new resources, not reallocated from existing programmes such as agriculture or cohesion.
Disagreemtn
Reception in Brussels has been mixed but active. The European Commission has signalled some openness to adjustment, including what officials describe as “legal changes” to the proposal to secure parliamentary support. Last November budget commissioner Piotr Serafin acknowledged concerns over regional funding and hinted at potential compromises.
Government representatives in the Council, however, remain more cautious. Several member states favour tighter spending limits and are resistant to a larger overall budget envelope. Diplomats also warn that Parliament’s demands risk slowing negotiations on an already complex file.
The Commission is attempting to ease tensions. President Ursula von der Leyen has already offered political concessions in recent months, including a greater role for Parliament in budget discussions and limited adjustments to regional funding design. The aim is to avoid an institutional clash that could delay agreement beyond 2026.
What’s next
Once the plenary confirms the committee’s position – expected later this month – Parliament will be ready to enter negotiations with the Council on the overall MFF regulation. Those talks can only formally begin once member states agree on their common position.
Crucially, Parliament must give its consent to the final budget envelope and EU-level revenue streams in a simple yes-or-no vote. Separately, the detailed rules and allocations for individual programmes will be negotiated under the ordinary co-decision procedure, covering schemes such as the proposed European Competitiveness Fund, Horizon Europe and Erasmus+.
