The “Mother of All Battles” at the Parliament: Political Groups react to the New MFF

After the European Commission presented the draft of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2028–2034, public attention initially focused on the reactions of the member states. This was especially true for Germany, which voiced the most criticism. However, it is important not to forget that the final form of the new MFF will depend not only on the member states but also on the European Parliament (EP). Although this institution is often seen as the “junior partner” in the EU’s institutional arrangement, when it comes to budgetary policy, it is actually an equal partner. This has been the case since 2009, when the Lisbon Treaty came into force, granting the EP the power to “co-decide” with the Council on the entire EU budget. This means that the EP now has the opportunity to vote on the MFF for the third time, considering that it previously approved the financial frameworks covering the periods 2014–2020 and 2021–2027. Given its significant role, the following parts examine how various political groups within the European Parliament have reacted to the Commission’s proposal.

Drawing the Red Lines

Unlike the member states, which mostly argued that the plan is overly ambitious and fiscally irresponsible, the EP sends a diametrically opposite message – the proposal lacks ambition, and the total financial resources need to be increased. According to the calculations of the Parliament’s “co-rapporteurs”, the Commission’s proposal does not represent any real progress compared to the current MFF. Although the amount may appear to have “doubled” nominally, they caution that this increase is solely due to inflation adjustments and the fact that a significant portion of the funds is allocated to repaying loans from the NextGenerationEU (a joint loan taken during the pandemic). Taking this into account, there is a warning that the EU risks entering the next decade with its’ hands tied- or rather its’ pockets tied – lacking the real capacity to strengthen competitiveness, or sufficient resources to address the challenges it faces: climate transition, security threats, technological competition, and economic inequalities among member states. Therefore, in the coming period, the co-rapporteurs are expected to present their own proposal for the total budget amount they consider desirable.

The amount itself aside, a key concern relates to the so-called “renationalisation” of the process. In an attempt to streamline and reduce bureaucracy, the Commission proposed consolidating all planned expenditures into a single document per Member State. However, rather than achieving the intended simplification, this has raised fears among members of the European Parliament (MEPs) that the proposal actually aims to strengthen the power of individual national capitals, thereby bypassing the EP and neglecting supranational issues. There is also fear of excessive centralisation, further limiting the influence of regional and local authorities on shaping the financial framework. According to the EP’s view, such a strategy would only deepen the divide between different parts of the EU, increase mistrust toward central governments, and reduce the effectiveness of planned projects and programs – many of which primarily address local needs.

Given that the Commission’s proposal would simplify the MFF, the EP emphasises the need to preserve the cohesion and agricultural funds as separate and distinct entities – funds traditionally regarded as pillars of the Union’s budget. The EP insists that these funds continue to be programmed separately and that their current allocations be maintained. It warns that integrating these funds into broader budget categories would undermine their visibility and long-term predictability of financing. This would also send the wrong signal to various social groups that have long depended on these funds- particularly farmers, who were among the first to take to the streets of Brussels to express their dissatisfaction. For now, this stance, along with the previously mentioned challenges, represents a set of red lines that will shape the future course of negotiations in which the EP will be engaged.

Priorities of the European Parliament

The stance of MEPs had been formed even before the Commission officially presented its proposal. In fact, back in May of this year, the European Parliament adopted its priorities for the EU’s long-term budget beyond 2027. These priorities laid the foundation for the red lines described above. At that time, 317 MEPs voted in favour, 206 opposed, and 123 abstained. The majority support came from the European People’s Party, Socialdemocrats, and the Liberals. Among the other political groups, the most vocal opponents on the right were the Patriots and Sovereigntists, while the Conservatives were split – with half voting against and half abstaining. Although almost diametrically opposed on nearly all issues, in this case, the right-wing groups overlapped with the Left, which also voted against, while the Greens abstained. The message from the majority of MEPs was twofold: on the one hand, the future budget must align with new geopolitical, economic, and social challenges; on the other, “you cannot do more with less,” meaning that increased ambitions must be matched by an increased budget.

The May vote proved to be a rehearsal for what would follow – virtually the same coalitions and opinion clashes re-emerged around the Commission’s proposal. Despite numerous differences, traditional political groups (the European People’s Party, the Socialdemocrats, and the Liberals) demonstrated their ability to speak with one voice regarding the Commission’s proposal for the next MFF. Their (highly critical) position amounted to a call for a larger budget, a rejection of the so-called renationalisation of budget programming, and a refusal of any attempts to reduce the agricultural and cohesion funds. As negotiations continue, the European People’s Party has gone so far as to warn sharply that “without partnership with the Parliament, there will be no budget”, while the Socialdemocrats remind that the EP must remain a central actor in budget negotiations. The Liberals, similarly, have called the proposed model “the end of the European project,” as it would lead to 27 different budgetary logics and abolish cross-border cooperation. Accordingly, the main message has been that the EP will do everything in its power to be a truly equal partner to the member states when deciding on the future of the Union’s budget.

The political groups that voted against the EP’s list of priorities in May and rejected the Commission’s proposal did so for a variety of reasons. For example, the Conservatives primarily cited fiscal concerns, rejecting the possibility of further joint borrowing as well as the introduction of new own resources for the Union’s financing. They argued that such revenues would place additional pressure on consumers and businesses, and could undermine the fiscal autonomy of member states. Sovereigntists and Patriots employed a populist narrative, claiming that the new proposal hands more power to the supranational level and that, through strengthening the conditionality mechanism for access to funds, it amounts to unacceptable political blackmail by Brussels bureaucrats. The Left, meanwhile, lamented what they see as excessive “securitisation” of the proposal, while the Greens pointed out a lack of emphasis on environmental protection. Given the entrenched positions of these groups, no change in their stance is expected moving forward – except perhaps among the Greens, who often engage in strategic voting as a way to reach compromise and limit the power of the right-wing spectrum.

Points of Overlap

Despite numerous criticisms, there are some silver linings for the Commission’s proposal. In fact, the analysis of existing assessments reveals several key points of overlap between this proposal and the positions of the traditional political groups in the EP. First, these groups support the Commission’s initiative to increase the number of own resources to collect additional common funds for repaying pandemic-era debts as well as for the Union’s increased spending needs. Second, they welcome the introduction of so-called “smart conditionality” of the budget, meaning that access to funds would be conditioned on implementing democratic reforms. Special emphasis is placed on strengthening the link between respect for the rule of law and access to EU budgetary funds. Third, they back continued support for Ukraine, including separate funds for its accession process as well as those aimed at macroeconomic stability and post-war reconstruction. This suggests that the EP will adopt the role of a constructive critic during negotiations with the member states and the Commission.

Among the points of overlap, it is especially significant that all three groups support the enlargement policy in the context of budget negotiations. In the priorities voted on in May 2025, it was emphasised that enlargement represents an opportunity to strengthen the Union as a geopolitical power and that the next MFF is “of crucial importance” for preparing the Union for this process. Calling for strategic investments through grants as well as loans, it is stressed that financial support must be conditioned on implementing reforms aligned with EU legal frameworks and policies, as well as respect for its values. Finally, it is highlighted that the existing mandatory clause for reviewing the MFF in case of enlargement should remain part of the next financial framework, and that national budgetary frameworks must not be affected. Since it is currently known that enlargement will be part of the budget line “Global Europe,” which is expected to amount to around 42 billion euros, there is no doubt that the majority in the EP will strive to ensure that the accession process of candidate countries is accompanied by a credible “carrot.”

Previously published on EUpravozato.