The European Parliament is preparing its negotiating position on the EU’s 2028–2034 budget, as MEPs move towards a committee vote that will shape Parliament’s mandate in talks with member states.
The European Parliament is preparing to define its negotiating position on the EU’s next long-term budget, setting the stage for talks with national governments over spending priorities from 2028 to 2034.
Parliament’s co-rapporteurs on the Multiannual Financial Framework, Siegfried Mureşan and Carla Tavares, are briefing journalists in Brussels on 14 April ahead of a Budgets Committee vote scheduled for Wednesday. The committee vote will concern the draft interim report on the Commission’s proposal for the next seven-year EU budget. Once adopted by the full Parliament, the text will become Parliament’s mandate for negotiations with the Council.
The timing gives the issue immediate institutional significance. The Commission presented its main proposal in July 2025, followed by sectoral proposals in September. It described the package as amounting to almost €2 trillion, equal to around 1.26 per cent of EU gross national income on average between 2028 and 2034.
The proposal is intended to reshape the structure of EU spending. The Commission has argued for more flexibility across the budget, simpler funding programmes, a stronger competitiveness focus and closer tailoring of EU funds to national and regional needs. It has also linked the budget to wider priorities including security, industrial resilience, innovation and support for clean and digital technologies.
Parliament’s role is not limited to commentary. The Multiannual Financial Framework requires Parliament’s consent before it can enter into force. That gives MEPs a formal veto over the final package, even though the main negotiations will also depend on agreement among member states.
The coming committee vote is therefore an early test of how Parliament intends to use that leverage. The draft position will indicate whether MEPs are prepared to accept the Commission’s proposed budget architecture or seek changes to funding lines, oversight arrangements, revenue sources and the balance between flexibility and parliamentary control.
One central issue is likely to be the Commission’s push for a more adaptable budget. Flexibility may allow the EU to respond more quickly to crises or new political priorities, but it can also raise questions about democratic scrutiny, predictability for beneficiaries and Parliament’s ability to track spending decisions. MEPs have repeatedly defended their role in budgetary control, particularly where large spending envelopes are concerned.
The proposal also comes at a time when EU spending is being pulled in several directions. Defence, Ukraine support, enlargement, competitiveness, research, climate policy, agriculture, cohesion and migration all compete for space within the same long-term framework. The next MFF will also have to reflect the cost of repaying borrowing linked to the EU’s pandemic recovery instrument.
The revenue side is equally sensitive. The Commission has proposed new own resources to help finance the future budget. These include revenues linked to the Emissions Trading System, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, non-collected electronic waste, tobacco excise duty and a corporate contribution from large companies operating in the EU market. Such proposals require careful negotiation because they affect national contributions, business costs and the wider balance between EU-level and national financing.
For member states, the MFF is one of the most politically difficult EU negotiations. Net contributors usually seek budgetary restraint, while beneficiaries of cohesion and agricultural funding resist reductions or structural changes. New priorities, particularly defence and industrial competitiveness, add pressure without removing older commitments.
For Parliament, the challenge is to set a position that is ambitious enough to influence negotiations but coherent enough to survive later plenary and interinstitutional bargaining. The committee stage will not decide the final budget, but it will define the terms on which MEPs enter the process.
The significance of the 14 April briefing lies in that preparatory phase. It gives Parliament’s lead negotiators an opportunity to outline their priorities before the committee vote and before the wider political contest with governments intensifies.
The final MFF will shape EU policy for most of the next decade. It will determine not only how much the EU spends, but how quickly funds can be redirected, how closely Parliament can scrutinise allocations, and how far Brussels can align its budget with emerging security, industrial and geopolitical demands.
