The Netherlands has rejected the European Commission’s draft long-term EU budget, branding the plan “dead on arrival” and signalling a hardening stance among fiscally conservative governments as Denmark steers early negotiations during its Council presidency.
Dutch finance minister Eelco Heinen said the proposed envelope was excessive and would raise the Netherlands’ gross contribution at a time of significant domestic pressures on defence spending.
The Commission unveiled its proposal in mid-July for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) covering 2028–2034. In current prices it totals “almost €2 trillion”, equivalent to an average of 1.26% of EU gross national income. Brussels argues the package is designed to repay pandemic-era joint borrowing while financing new priorities around competitiveness, security and resilience. The proposal now requires unanimous agreement of the 27 member states and consent from the European Parliament.
In an interview published on Monday, Heinen set out The Hague’s opening position. He said the Commission’s plan would add roughly €5 billion per year to the Dutch gross contribution and that EU capitals should focus on “spending better” rather than “spending more”, citing defence, innovation and migration as the areas the Netherlands wants prioritised. The minister’s remarks underscore the stance of the so-called “frugal” group — the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and others — which has traditionally pressed for tighter EU spending.
The Commission counters that the architecture of the new framework is leaner and more flexible. According to officials, the draft consolidates the current array of programmes from 52 to 16 and allows more room to reallocate money during the seven-year period. It also sketches a large competitiveness instrument, reported at about €409 billion, alongside funding lines for external action and crisis response.
Opposition from northern capitals has centred not only on the headline total but also on how the plan would be financed. At a G20 gathering in July, ministers from Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden restated their resistance to fresh EU-level joint borrowing, positioning any repeat of the pandemic-time “Next Generation EU” debt as a one-off. Denmark voiced scepticism as well. Those governments argue that additional common debt would transfer fiscal risk onto stronger balance sheets.
For Copenhagen, which holds the rotating presidency until the end of December, the immediate task is procedural: securing agreement on structure and priorities to keep technical work moving before confrontations over figures and national rebates begin. Danish presidency papers indicate a focus on a “secure, competitive and green” Europe, but no public commitment on the final size of the framework.
Beyond the top line, the Commission proposal would maintain the traditional pillars of the EU budget — agriculture and cohesion — while carving out space for defence-industrial measures, research and external policy. Independent assessments note that, after stripping out repayments on pandemic-era borrowing, the cash available for new EU programmes would be closer to €1.8 trillion, below the current period once inflation is considered. These details are likely to feature prominently as net contributors argue for restraint and the Parliament pushes for stronger funding of agreed priorities.
The Dutch rejection sets the tone for what is expected to be a protracted negotiation. In the previous cycle, leaders took two years to finalise the 2021–2027 MFF and the associated recovery fund. As before, an eventual deal will require unanimity and will be shaped by multiple cross-pressures: rising defence outlays, support to Ukraine, demands for industrial policy, and pressure to preserve farm and cohesion spending. Early reactions from other capitals have been mixed, with Sweden critical of the overall size and several governments signalling reservations or specific priorities.
Next steps will see the Danish presidency organise further ministerial debates and technical sessions on headings, flexibility instruments and own-resources. The file will then pass to subsequent presidencies if needed. For now, the Netherlands’ position — that the Commission’s plan cannot proceed in its current form — has crystallised the initial dividing line in the talks: whether the EU should expand the shared pot, or refocus existing spending within a tighter ceiling.
