EU Budget 2028–2034: A Europe of weapons instead of a Europe of people

Kostas Arvanitis named the new budget EU dangerous for citizens, farmers, workers and pensioners.

Kostas Arvanitisvice-chairman European Left Party and head of delegation SYRIZA-PS in the European Parliament, sharply criticized the draft new EU Multiannual Financial Plan 2028–2034saying that it is dangerous for ordinary European citizens, farmers, workers, youth and pensioners.

The reason for the statement was the draft of a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF, EU Multiannual Financial Framework), presented European Commission. As she said herself European Commissionwe are talking about a budget of almost 2 trillion euros for the period 2028–2034or on average about 1.26% EU gross national income.

According to Reutersthe project provides for a sharp rising defense and space spending – up to 131 billion eurosCreation European Competitiveness Foundation on 451 billion eurosas well as a new architecture for financing agriculture and regional development. And it is precisely this “new architecture” that has already managed to frighten those who suspect that under the word “architecture” Brussels sometimes hides the demolition of an old house along with its residents.

What Kostas Arvanitis said

Kostas Arvanitis named the project European Commission not just insufficient, but “dangerous for ordinary European citizens, workers, farmers, youth and pensioners”. According to him, despite the scale of the budget, Brussels is actually cementing the rejection of the idea social Europe and a return to a model where weapons, security and inequality are the top priorities.

Arvanitis placed political responsibility on the right-wing leadership EU and chairman European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. In his assessment, the proposed budget does not mean the modernization of the European project, but its shift towards “Fortress Europe” and Europe for a narrow circle of strong players.

He spoke out especially harshly against the possible weakening Κοινή Αγροτική Πολιτική (CAP, EU Common Agricultural Policy) and its connection with Cohesion Funds. According to Arvanitis, this is not a technical accounting shakeup, but a direct blow to farmers and rural areas.

Controversy over KAP and Cohesion Funds

Arvanitis’s main complaint is that KAP And Cohesion funds may lose their former autonomy and predictability. He argues that farmers have relied on stable European support for decades, but the new model turns it into a set of policy packages with less clear goals and more uncertain funding.

This is not just a Greek alarm. Reuters previously reported that members of the European Parliament had already challenged the draft budget precisely because of the risks for agricultural support and regional assistance, demanding the return of separate and protected funding to them.

The issue for farmers is an extremely practical one: if money for agriculture is absorbed into broader national plans, support may become less assured. And when a farmer is offered “flexibility” instead of a clear scheme, he usually hears: tomorrow you will get less, but with a beautiful presentation.

More power to national governments

Arvanitis is especially concerned that the distribution of funds in the new model will be more dependent on national governments. He sees this not as a technical detail, but as a political decision that weakens common European policy and transfers more power to cabinet ministers, including those pursuing anti-social or authoritarian policies.

In the Greek context, Arvanitis directly recalls the scandals surrounding ΟΠΕΚΕΠΕ (Greek Organization for Payments and Control of Public Assistance, Guidance and Guarantees), hinting that such schemes and abuses under the new model may receive not only a national, but also a European seal.

The problem is indeed broader than party criticism. If Brussels transfers more funds through national plans, it must simultaneously ensure strict controls over transparency, conflicts of interest, the distribution of subsidies and the protection of end recipients. Otherwise, the idea of ​​“flexibility” quickly turns into a good old national buffet at European expense.

Defense instead of social Europe

Arvanitis also criticizes sharp increases in funding for military spending, security and technology programs. According to him, funds for social transfers, public services, poverty alleviation, education, research and green transformation are being pushed back in favor of geopolitical priorities.

Formally European Commission explains the new budget with the need to prepare the EU for a “new era”: the war in Ukraine, competition with USA And Chinamigration, technology dependence and security require a different cost structure. Reuters wrote that the project includes a major increase in spending on defense, migration and border management, as well as new EU own revenues.

But this is where the political divide lies. For supporters of strengthening EU As a geopolitical player, such a budget seems inevitable. For the left, farmer organizations and some of the regions, this is a signal that social Europe is giving way to a Europe of weapons, borders and industrial competition.

What auditors and project critics say

European Court of Auditors in its review of the draft budget, it also indicates that the proposed model contains many changes and may lead to new risks in the management of funds. According to European Court of Auditorsthe proposed funding is almost 2 trillion euros at current prices, or about 1.8 trillion euros in 2025 prices, which is noticeably higher than the current framework.

At the same time, critics point out that the increase in the amount itself does not solve the distribution problem. If the budget structure changes so that traditional recipients receive less protection, then a record amount does not guarantee social sustainability. The budget may be large, but for a particular farmer, region or household, what is important is not the overall weight of the document, but whether the support will reach it.

Therefore, the controversy surrounding the new MFR has already gone beyond accounting. This is a debate about what Europe will be like after 2028: a social union, a defense bloc, a technological project or an increasingly expensive machine of compromise, where each new crisis is paid for by cutting back on old promises.

Why is this important for Greece

For Greece the issue is particularly sensitive. Agriculture, regional programmes, infrastructure, island territories and social support have traditionally depended on European funding. Any decrease in predictability KAP And Cohesion Funds may hit regions where there are few alternative sources of development.

Greek farmers already face rising costs, expensive energy, water problems, climate risks and bureaucracy. If more uncertain European support is added to this, the political cost will be high. And yes, then someone in Brussels will again wonder why farmers are blocking roads with tractors. The mystery of the century, like an archaeological puzzle.

That is why Arvanitis’ statement must be understood not only as party criticism SYRIZA. It reflects a broader fear: that under the banner of geopolitical empowerment EU will start saving on those who already feel left behind – rural areas, small businesses, young people, pensioners and poor households.

Editorial comment

Criticism Kostas Arvanitis may be politically charged, but the issue he raises is real. The new EU budget is not just a table of expenses. It is a choice between a prosperous Europe that tries to protect people and regions, and a Europe that is increasingly rebuilt to preparations for war with Russia.

Source link