Statement by leading MEPs on the long-term budget and own resources, in response to the negotiating box presented on Saturday by the Irish Presidency.
The European Parliament’s lead co-rapporteurs on the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) Siegfried Mureșan (EPP, RO) and Carla Tavares (S&D, PT) firmly reject the draft negotiating position emerging from the Council. Together with Parliament’s co-rapporteurs on own resources, Danuše Nerudová (EPP, CZ) and Sandra Gómez López (S&D, ES), they issue the following statement
"The Irish Presidency’s proposal cannot be the starting point for an agreement. A cut of 8% to the Commission's proposal, which already only keeps the budget at the level of the current period, would mean weakening our capacity to act, just as Europe is asked to do more on competitiveness, defence, and security. It would leave Europe less capable of protecting its citizens and of competing economically with the world’s major economies. It would mean underfunding agriculture and reducing support for our regions. National budgets have grown in the past years, and the EU budget has not kept pace. Instead, 10% of its purchasing power has vanished due to high inflation. Parliament adopted its position in April this year, and our message has not changed: cuts that weaken Europe will not get our consent. We are ready to negotiate, but a deal must be built on ambition, not on the logic of net balances. New own resources are part of the solution, not the problem. Yet the Irish Presidency has failed to take any of Parliament’s proposals into account. It is high time for member states to take a decision on a balanced mix of new revenue sources, taking into account both the proposals put forward by the Commission and by Parliament," Siegfried Mureşan (EPP, Romania) said.
"As the Irish Presidency’s negotiating box cuts the Commission’s proposal, it moves us in the wrong direction at a time when challenges are structural, not temporary. In particular, the 12.8% cut to competitiveness and 17.4% cut to external action risk leaving Europeans exposed: less equipped to close the innovation and investment gap, support Europe’s partners, respond to crises and defend its interests and values, precisely when global instability is on the rise. How can we reconcile these cuts with our stated ambition of strategic autonomy? How can Europe continue to play a lead role on the global stage while cutting the very funding that supports its own ambition? Parliament is not asking for 'more money'; we are asking for resources that match the responsibilities demanded from the EU. That requires courage and a serious decision on the introduction of new revenue sources by member states, based on all the proposals on the table, consistent with the basket approach. We stand ready to work with the Council on a balanced outcome. However, member states must respect the will of citizens, expressed through this Parliament, and the current negotiating box does not provide an adequate basis for our discussions. The choice before us is not between a cheap and an expensive Europe. It is between an underfunded Europe at the mercy of the next crisis, and a properly funded Europe that can tackle challenges and respond to Europeans’ needs," Carla Tavares (S&D, Portugal) said.
“It is clear that the Presidency refused to take any decision on the revenue side, proposing only minor adjustments. We are especially very disappointed that none of Parliament’s proposals were taken on board, despite having received positive feedback from many Member States” said Danuše Nerudová (EPP, Czech Republic), the EPP own resources co-Rapporteur.
“I want to make something crystal clear: without progress in own resources there is no MFF. And this negobox doesn’t show progress”, added the S&D own resources rapporteur, Sandra Gómez López (S&D, Spain).
The MFF co-rapporteurs further underline the following points:
- The Irish presidency proposal is neither ambitious nor significant in comparison with the current MFF, when it was agreed.
- Together with the latest GNI forecasts, this would bring the overall size of the EU budget to just 1.02 % of GNI, excluding NGEU repayments. This is well below the 1.14% of GNI spending level envisaged when the current MFF was agreed.
- The proposed increase of €356 billion (+28%) compared to the current MFF does not compensate for the cumulative effects of inflation and economic growth. Of the €356 billion increase, €150 billion would be needed to cover the repayment costs of the NextGenerationEU Covid-19 recovery fund, while €390 billion would be required to compensate for inflation and preserve the purchasing power of the EU budget over the 2021–2027 period. Therefore, compared with the current MFF, the real value of the EU budget would actually be strongly reduced by €161 billion (-10 %).
- It means that the EU budget can buy much fewer goods and services and have less capital for investment.
- This is in addition to a gap which has been increasing during the current MFF 2021-27, when nationally financed public investment has consistently increased to a total of +30%, while the EU budget has lost purchasing power of 10%. This growing divergence would therefore not only persist but deepen, despite the substantial economic returns and strategic benefits of investment at EU level.
- The overall benefits of EU membership significantly exceed the direct financial contribution for all member states, even for those that are net contributors to the EU budget. Economic benefits of EU membership are estimated to be two to six times the financial contribution of individual member states. For every euro we contribute to the EU budget, we can receive up to six euros in return.
Background
In its position, Parliament called for an increase of around 10% compared to the Commission’s July 2025 proposal, to support key priorities such as defence and security, competitiveness, cohesion and agriculture. MEPs proposed new revenue sources for the common budget that could bring an additional €30 billions to the EU’s budget, over and above the €57.4 billions included in the Commission’s 2025 proposal, to ease the pressure on EU member state contributions, including a digital services levy, an online gambling levy, and a levy on crypto-asset capital gains. For the EU’s long-term budget to be adopted, a unanimous decision in Council and Parliament’s consent, by an absolute majority of MEPs, is required. More than 93% of the EU budget goes directly into EU programmes that support people and projects across member states, and less than 7% is spent on administration.