EU prepares record budget, but countries argue over priorities

European Union discusses record budget 2028-2034: defence, farmers, regions and debt clash in one dispute.

Key Findings

• European Union prepares a record seven-year budget for 2028–2034which can approach 1.8–1.9 trillion euros.
• The main debate is not only about the size of the budget, but about where to allocate the money: to defense, competitiveness, farmers, regionsmigration, Ukraine or paying off debts.
• European Commission speaks of a “fiscal trilemma”: old programs require continuation, new challenges require money, and member countries do not want to endlessly increase spending.
• European Parliament insists on a more ambitious budget, while some states, including large payers, fear rising contributions, new debts and pan-European taxes.
• In fact, the budget dispute has become a dispute about the future of the model EU: Will it remain a union of subsidies and regional support or will it increasingly turn into a defense-industrial and geopolitical bloc.

European Union entered into some of the most difficult budget negotiations in its history. New seven-year budget for 2028–2034 should be a record, but the dispute in Brussels It’s no longer just about amounts: EU countries are increasingly less and less in agreement on what exactly the common money should be spent on.

Negotiations on a new EU Multiannual Financial Framework revealed a deep conflict of priorities within European Union. Defence, competitiveness, farm support, regional policy, migration, post-pandemic debt repayments and possible new EU-wide taxes now compete for the same fiscal pie. The pie, of course, is a record-breaking one, but there are still more people with forks than there are pieces.

According to Reuters, European Commission in 2025 proposed a seven-year budget of approximately 2 trillion euros for the period 2028–2034. The project must simultaneously finance traditional areas – agriculture and regional development – and new priorities: defense, security, technology and competitiveness.

Budget record and the “fiscal trilemma”

At the center of the conflict is what Brussels is already calling “fiscal trilemma”. EU must simultaneously solve three problems: maintain funding for old programs, find money for new geopolitical and defense challenges, and at the same time not break the limits of acceptable expenses with which member states agree.

According to ReutersThe European Union is preparing for a fierce fight over the budget 2028–2034as new defense and competitiveness needs collide with traditional costs for farmers and regional support.

The problem is simple and unpleasant: if more money is given for defense and technology, it may not be enough for agriculture and a cohort of regions that have lived off structural funds for decades. If you keep the old spending model, EU risks not finding resources for its own security and industrial restructuring. If you increase the overall budget, you will have to argue about who will pay. Whichever option is chosen, someone in Europe is bound to be unhappy. Surprisingly, budget mathematics has not yet learned how to create money from press releases.

The European Parliament demands more money

European Parliament has already advocated for a more ambitious budget. As he writes Reutersthe parliament’s position actually raises the seven-year budget to €1.94 trillion and requires additional funding for agriculture, regional policy, competitiveness, foreign policy and administrative costs.

The main argument of European parliamentarians: repayment of debts on joint borrowings during the pandemic should not occur at the expense of programs and recipients of European funds. In other words, EU should not pay off old debts by cutting farmers, regions, social programs and investments.

But this is where the conflict begins with a tougher budgetary logic, which is promoted by some member countries and itself European Commission. For some, the budget should be an instrument for a geopolitical breakthrough. For others, it should not turn into a bottomless pan-European treasury, where new priorities automatically mean new contributions.

Von der Leyen and the spending cap

Chairman’s team European Commission Ursula von der Leyen tries to maintain a balance between growing demands and cost restrictions. We are talking about the budget ceiling as a percentage of the total gross national income EU countries. It is this mechanism that limits the scale of overall spending and prevents the budget from growing uncontrollably.

But the spending ceiling is increasingly difficult to reconcile with reality. EU wants to spend more on defense, at the same time support Ukraine, strengthen industry, compete with USA And Chinafinance climate programs, keep farmers from revolting, support poor regions and pay off debts. The list looks as if Brussels ordered five strategies for itself, and decided to pay with one card with a limit.

Against this background European Commission proposes to change the budget architecture: to combine part of the funds, make national and regional plans more flexible and link payments to reforms and results. On the official budget page European Commission stresses that the new framework should integrate the means implemented by states and regions into a more coherent strategy, keeping cohesion policy and agriculture among the key areas.

Defense against farmers and regions

The most acute conflict is around the redistribution of priorities. After the war in Ukraine and rising tensions with Russia defense became one of the main requirements for the new budget. By offer European Commissiondefense and space spending are set to rise sharply, and the new European Competitiveness Foundation get hundreds of billions of euros.

However, this is a cause for concern for those countries and groups that depend on traditional European funds. Common Agricultural Policy has been one of the EU’s biggest spending areas for decades. Regional policy also remains vital for countries in Southern and Eastern Europe, where European funds finance roads, infrastructure, employment, investment and local development.

As I wrote earlier Financial TimesEuropean agricultural authorities fear that agricultural money could be diluted or redirected to new priorities, including defense. For farmers, it sounds simple: Brussels asks to produce food, comply with environmental requirements, compete with imports, and at the same time is ready to discuss reductions in the usual support. A fabulous motivational program if the goal was to get tractors back on the road.

Germany against new debts

Of particular importance is the position Germanythe largest contributor to the EU budget. Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for a review of the EU’s budget system and said that the current model is outdated and poorly suited to modern challenges. According to Reutershe advocates a budget focused on competitiveness and defense.

At the same time Merz opposes new joint borrowings and pan-European taxes, which are supported by some European leaders, including France. For Berlin further increase in debt appears unacceptable, including due to internal constitutional restrictions and political pressure against the backdrop of a high debt burden.

This creates a classic European bifurcation: everyone wants a strong EU, but not everyone wants to pay for it. Everyone wants defense, but not everyone agrees to slaughter farmers. Everyone talks about competitiveness, but no one wants to be the first to explain to voters why traditional subsidies or programs might change.

Where to look for money

A separate battle is going on around sources of income. EU discusses new proprietary resources: possible fees related to emissions, corporate profits, digital economy, customs mechanisms and other areas. As explains ReutersBrussels is looking for ways to raise revenue to finance defense, competitiveness and shared debt servicing without cutting too much in agriculture and regional aid.

But new income almost always means new political conflict. Some countries are afraid of losing tax sovereignty. Others don’t want the new fees to hit the industry. Still others demand that subsidies be maintained and contributions not increased at the same time. This, of course, is excellent European engineering: to build a system where everyone demands results, but everyone wants their neighbor to pay.

In addition, the EU must service and repay debts associated with the pandemic recovery fund. These payments are becoming an increasingly prominent expense item and increasing competition for budget funds. The more money spent on past obligations, the less is left for future programs.

Why is the debate not just about numbers?

New budget 2028–2034 will become more than just a financial document. He must answer the question how EU wants to be in the next decade: an alliance of subsidies and regional alignment, a defense-industrial bloc, a technological competitor to the US and China, or a hybrid of all three.

The problem is that a hybrid of everything at once is expensive. And if there is not enough money, you have to choose. This is why the budget dispute is turning into a political dispute about the future of Europe. Farmers demand protection. Eastern countries demand security. Southern – regional support. Northern and some wealthy payers require discipline. Industry requires investment. Ukraine requires long-term assistance. And everyone considers their request not just important, but existential.

In practice, negotiations will be long and tough. Everyone’s consent is required to approve the budget. 27 member states and approval European Parliament. This means that every major country and every interest group will try to bargain for its own. Brussels is already accustomed to compromise, but this time a compromise will have to be sought in the context of war, debt, a competitiveness crisis and voter fatigue.

Editorial comment

The EU’s record budget shows not the strength of Europe, but the scale of its contradictions. Brussels wants to be simultaneously a military player, an industrial power, a social union, a green economy and a mutual aid fund for the regions. All this sounds good in strategies, but in the budget it turns into a cruel question: who will get less?

The main conflict of the new budget is not the amount, but the choice of the European model. If money goes into defense and competitiveness, the usual recipients – farmers and regions – will suffer. If the old system is maintained, the EU will again find itself weak in the face of external challenges. And if you simply increase spending, you will have to explain to citizens and paying countries why you have to pay more for European ambitions again. This is where Brussels poetry ends and the usual accounting of power begins.

Source link