EPP

The European Parliament’s four main pro-Commission groups have warned they will block talks on the EU’s next seven-year budget unless the European Commission rewrites key elements of its near-€2 trillion plan by Wednesday, 12 November.

In a joint letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, now in her second mandate, the European People’s Party (EPP), Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens/EFA set out seven conditions for opening negotiations and said the draft “cannot be accepted as a basis” for talks.

The Commission presented its blueprint on 16 July for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), describing it as a more flexible, “dynamic” budget calibrated for crises and strategic priorities. The proposal groups a large share of cohesion and agricultural spending into single “National and Regional Partnership Plans”, effectively national envelopes to be agreed between each government and the EU executive. Parliament’s leaders argue the model would centralise control, weaken the role of regions and the European Parliament, and risk “fragmentation” through 27 separate plans rather than a coherent EU approach.

The flashpoint is the treatment of cohesion policy and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Commission’s design would merge these streams within national plans worth about €865 billion, while shifting a greater share of funds towards defence, competitiveness and other new priorities. The four groups demand that cohesion and CAP remain distinct policies with protected envelopes, warning that “pooling” would dilute objectives and reduce predictability for beneficiaries. They also call for formal guarantees of Parliament’s role in approving and revising national plans.

Lawmakers further caution against a “reform-for-cash” mechanism that would tie access to regional funding to the fulfilment of milestones and targets defined in Brussels. They argue this could create a democratic deficit if national executives become decisive gatekeepers, at the expense of regional and local authorities that currently co-design and oversee programmes. The letter also questions the size of unallocated reserves in the draft, saying excessive flexibility could undermine long-term commitments and policy coherence.

Siegfried Mureșan, one of Parliament’s lead negotiators on the file, has said the groups have aligned on common demands and indicated the Commission is technically prepared to revise aspects of the blueprint. However, senior figures continue to criticise the “National and Regional Partnership Plans”, warning they would recentralise the budget and sideline the legislature.

The immediate calendar adds pressure. The Budgets Committee will question Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin on Wednesday, 5 November, in a session covering the next MFF, the Interinstitutional Agreement and the Own Resources Decision. One week later, on Wednesday, 12 November, the full Parliament is due to debate the budget in Brussels, with groups signalling they will not allow talks to begin unless their conditions are met. Whether the debate results in a resolution remains uncertain.

The Commission defends the reform as a response to the past five years, when successive shocks — the pandemic, Russia’s war against Ukraine, energy volatility and competitiveness pressures — forced repeated ad hoc fixes and off-budget instruments. The executive says the new framework, amounting to just over 1.26% of EU gross national income on average, would simplify programmes, create headroom and better finance strategic technologies and crisis response.

Outside Parliament, scepticism is broad. Regional leaders and the European Committee of the Regions have urged the executive to retain a strong role for local authorities in programming, while farming organisations warn that lower shares for agriculture in real terms would hit incomes and planning. The Commission has said it is open to “constructive exchanges”, but it has not committed to amending the draft.

Under EU law, the MFF requires unanimity among the 27 member states and the consent of the European Parliament. The letter from the four groups therefore carries weight: it signals that consent will depend on reversing the single-pot approach, restoring clear, separate lines for cohesion and CAP, and codifying Parliament’s role in the programming cycle. Member states are assessing the July package and are expected to table their own amendments in 2026, with a final framework envisaged in early 2027 so that programmes can launch on time in 2028.

In practical terms, the dispute turns on three issues that will shape the eventual settlement: whether cohesion and agriculture remain ring-fenced as distinct policies; how far national governments, rather than regional authorities, steer programming and conditionality; and how much formal authority Parliament has to approve and revise plans. Unless the Commission accommodates the seven demands by 12 November, the majority coalition in Parliament says negotiations will not begin — an early test of the institutional balance that will define the next long-term EU budget.