Last week, I pledged to write about the new long-term budget, presented by the EU Commission. Indeed, having served as Malta’s budget attaché in Brussels for over four years, and a presidency in between, I came to understand the EU budget not as a mere technical instrument, but as the most political expression of the EU’s power. Certainly, the EU Commission’s latest proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) only confirms what many of us have long suspected. Surely, it is not about solidarity any longer, but about strategy to reorganise the EU budget lines and finances.
The proposal for the 2028-2034 MFF, unveiled with considerable display, introduces a roughly €2 trillion ceiling for spending commitments. On the surface, the numbers suggest ambition. However, when we dig deeper, what surely emerges is an unapologetic political recalibration of priorities. This isn’t a financial update, but a redistribution of influence. And I will explain why. Those expecting continuity in regional cohesion, rural development or climate transition will be left disappointed. Undoubtedly, the new winners are Ukraine, defence, and strategic industrial autonomy. Specifically, the proposed budget reflects this power play with clinical precision and prescription. The Commission wants to allocate over €130 billion to defence and space. It is an extraordinary fivefold increase relative to the current MFF cycle. Also, another €34 billion will go towards migration and border control, tripling previous funding. Not sure what they are thinking, but this is not the free world, but more Trump’s USA. Whatever they utter, that’s how it is looking. And the Ukraine envelope? An eye-watering €100 billion is proposed for 2028-2034, on top of the existing €50 billion Ukraine Facility already in place until 2027. These are actually the main acts of the new long-term budget.
Needless to say, after appearing on TV explaining what the new MFF entails, many asked me where the money will be coming from. The proposal relies on a mix of new own resources, including, inter alia, revenues from the Emissions Trading System (ETS), the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), a corporate levy based on company turnover, tobacco excise duties and a charge on non-recycled plastic packaging waste. Own Resources are funds which we contribute towards the EU Budget, and the projected figure stands at around €58.5 billion annually. However, don’t be fooled. Given that I had a bit of time to dig the numbers, the EU Commission’s geopolitical ambitions will still be financed internally by redeploying money from existing budget headings. This notably includes repurposing cohesion and agricultural funds via flexibility mechanisms that blur the line between strategic realignment and the hollowing out of legacy policies.
The proposed merger of Cohesion Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) into a single budget heading may sound like streamlining. Surely, it is not. It is a deliberate attempt to dilute the distinct identities of two fundamentally different policy pillars. Cohesion Policy has always been about convergence, thereby reducing disparities between Europe’s regions through shared management programmes between the EU Commission and member states. On the other hand, the CAP Pillar I is market-driven, centrally managed direct support to farmers. And while Pillar II, which relates to Rural Development, shares some features with cohesion, it is not actually cohesion. The joining of both funding conceals these distinctions, and that is precisely the point. This line of strategy aligns with the scepticism long echoed within Germany’s CDU – the political family of Ursula von der Leyen – by figures like Wolfgang Schauble, which surely reflects a persistent view that cohesion funds risk fostering dependency rather than genuine convergence. And I totally disagree with this thinking. Surely, it will enable the EU Commission to consolidate budgetary oversight while weakening the political voice of rural constituencies.
Let us not be naive about the political calculus here. This fusion isn’t about policy coherence, but it’s about concentration of power. We are used to those outfits now. What they intend to do, by masking rural development under cohesion and presenting cohesion as a fungible pot, is that the European Commission is laying the groundwork to reallocate funding more freely in the future. It is a divide and rule budget edition. Actually, it gets worse. Under the current flexibilities, member states can already reprogramme parts of their cohesion envelopes toward defence-related priorities, thereby supporting dual-use infrastructure or bolstering local defence supply chains. These adjustments are not only encouraged but backed by incentives, which include up to 100% co-financing and 30% pre-financing, with implementation expected by 2026. In Brussels’ budget terminology, this is called responsiveness and agile budgeting. However, in reality, it is a quiet redirection of solidarity funds towards the logic of militarisation.
Ironic as it may sound, the European Parliament, despite its rhetorical role in defending democratic legitimacy, has little real power in shaping the MFF. Under Article 312 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Parliament has only the right of consent. They will either say yes or no, but they cannot amend, and they won’t be involved in the negotiations. I’ve been there and done that, in the mid-term review of the 2014-2020 MFF during the Maltese Presidency. The real decisions lie with the Council of the EU and the EU Commission. The European Parliament becomes a bystander, not a co-author. It rubber-stamps what is already politically engineered. And that engineering is visible not just in what is prioritised, but also in what is downplayed.
Let’s take climate, for instance. The EU Commission maintains the formal target that 30% of the MFF should contribute to climate objectives. On closer inspection, it’s far from impressive. There is no new flagship climate programme. LIFE remains stuck below €800 million. The Just Transition Fund gets lip service, but little or no boost. Meanwhile, climate mainstreaming is spread thin across instruments, with no ringfenced increases. We are told climate is a top priority. However, the budget says otherwise. The same applies to cohesion funds. The headline figure of €218 billion for cohesion looks respectable, but it represents a significant drop in both relative and political weight. The merging of headings, the enabling of flexible transfers, and the narrative accentuating strategic autonomy all point to one conclusion that cohesion is no longer central to the EU’s story.
One must also read the politics behind the numbers. Von der Leyen’s recent escape from a motion of no confidence in the European Parliament came with no concessions to the S&D group. The S&D voted, or better abstained, to keep her in but got nothing back. Von der Leyen neither courted nor compensated them. Instead, she walked out of the episode strengthened, and what followed is quite telling. The budget proposal gives no room to their flagship priorities, irrespective of the ESF+. Ursula chewed them and spat them out, like they wouldn’t believe. And the budget reflects that ruthlessness in full. In reality, this budget proposal is not an accounting exercise but a strategic play. It concentrates power within the EU Commission, erodes shared management models, reduces the political salience of social and territorial cohesion, and instrumentalises flexibility mechanisms to entrench geopolitical priorities. The EU Commission’s hand is now deeply embedded in what were once decentralised funds. And it has done so not by confrontation, but by stealth, just by redefining headings, repurposing instruments, and reframing the narrative. In Brussels, it is often said that budgets reflect our values. However, that is being economical with the truth. Budgets may claim to reflect virtue, but they mostly entrench power.
This budget reflects a European Union restructured around external action, industrial security, and tight central control. It is a budget where climate takes the back seat, cohesion becomes decorative, and rural development is rendered nearly invisible. The European Parliament may yet consent to this new MFF. But in doing so, it should be insightful. This is not just a financial framework; it is a statement of what kind of EU we are building. And some of us have seen enough to recognise when solidarity is being dressed up as strategy, and eventually quietly dismantled.
