European Parliament slams Commission’s EU budget proposal: ‘It’s a joke’

Brussels – If starting on the right foot means you’re halfway there, then the European Commission has already got off to a bad start. The European Parliament gave a particularly harsh reception to the new draft budget, designed by Ursula von der Leyen and presented in the Committee on Budgets by the Commissioner responsible Piotr Serafin. MEPs from across the political spectrum lashed out against the Commission’s project, pointing the finger at the “re-nationalization” of the EU budget, which will weaken joint action, disempower Parliament, and lack transparency in the management of this crucial dossier.

After months of anticipation, negotiations for defining the new EU budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which will cover the period 2028-2034, formally began today (July 16). The occasion was the simultaneous presentation of the Commission’s proposal, entrusted to President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner responsible for the Budget portfolio, Piotr Serafin.

While von der Leyen explained the structure she intends to give the Union’s new budget to the press from her headquarters at the Berlaymont, Serafin had to face the fierce budget committee (BUDG) in the European Parliament, which was waiting for him to criticize the EU executive’s draft point by point. Von der Leyen’s proposal – not yet received at the time of publishing this article, with only a press release available- is a budget of approximately EUR 2 trillion, to be partly divided into 27 national and regional partnership plans (NRPPs) that would replace the over 530 current EU programs.

A EUR 865 billion umbrella mega-fund combining the Cohesion and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funds, a EUR 410 billion competitiveness fund (of which EUR 131 billion for defense), EUR 400 billion for a crisis management mechanism, EUR 200 billion for external action and enlargement, EUR 100 billion for support to Ukraine, and EUR 50 billion for culture, education, and mobility. All this with 1.15 percent of the gross national income (GNI) of the EU-27, plus a further 0.11 percent to repay debts incurred with the NextGeneration Eu (NGEU), the post-pandemic recovery facility.

Too little for the European Parliament, which warns of the danger that the “1.26% spending ceiling will force cuts to flagship programs.” In a joint note, the chamber’s rapporteurs on the MFF (Romanian People’s Party Siegfried Mureșan and Portuguese Socialist Carla Tavares) and on own resources (Spanish Socialist Sandra Gómez López and Czech People’s Party Danuše Nerudová) stress that “the budget maths do not add up” and denounce an “astonishing lack of ambition” in the Commission’s proposal, which they describe as “a challenging basis from which to begin negotiations.”

Not an “ambitious budget” as Serafin tried to sell it, then, but “a freeze on commitments and expenditure in real terms” compared to the current MFF, artificially inflated by the adjustment for inflation and the inclusion of NGEU repayments. Not exactly what one would expect to finance the Union’s priorities in such uncertain times: “We cannot do more with the same resources,” many MEPs repeated to the Commissioner during the afternoon hearing (delayed by three and a half hours due to delays in the College’s deliberations).

“It is the status quo, which the Commission has always insisted is not an option,” the co-rapporteurs, according to whom “A stronger EU budget cannot be built on the mistakes of the past.” That is to say, to place the repayments of NGEU debt alongside the budget programs, and to reshape the entire MFF by hinging it on 27 national plans based on performance –
which has long been subject to criticism from the Strasbourg Chamber – that foresees the disbursement of funds in exchange for the implementation of reforms, just as in the case of the Recovery and Reilience Facility (RRF), the core of the NextGeneration.

Also in the hemicycle’s crosshairs is the merger of many key EU programs, including Cohesion Policy, the CAP, the European Social Fund, and others, into mega-umbrella funds. As the co-rapporteurs put it, this risks “undermining proven policies that have delivered concrete results.” Above all, the “re-nationalization” of the twelve-star budget risks promoting “fragmented national plans, with no links to European objectives” and turning the EU budget into a “cash machine” and a set of “27 separate shopping lists.”

After all, representatives of local authorities have long spoken out against the centralization that von der Leyen is pushing for, fearing that they will lose their role in managing cohesion funds for territorial development. The president of the Committee of the Regions (CoR), Kata Tüttő, spoke of a “monster plan that aims to swallow cohesion policy and crack its backbone by nationalizing and centralizing” behind “the smokescreen of simplification.”

Now we understand the secrecy: from behind the simplification smoke a MONSTER plan emerges to swallow cohesion policy and crack its backbone by nationalising and centralising https://t.co/bbZ7aP7RcJ

– Kata Tüttő (@CoR_President) July 16, 2025

The MEPs also lash out against the lack of transparency and democratic oversight, which, in their view, stems from the Commission’s proposal, through some elements “that could marginalize the role of the European Parliament,” bypassing its competences in budgetary matters and control over the work of the EU executive.

Beginning with the fact that, as Mureșan and his colleagues complain, the European Parliament was not adequately informed of the Commission’s plans, but instead learned about them through the press. They were presented with only slides by Serafin, not legal documents with precise figures and precise indications. Above all, “this proposal has been prepared against the wishes of Parliament, beneficiaries and regions,” and the result is “a less democratic, less transparent, less European budget.” 

Among the most outraged reactions from members of the BUDG committee, some described the Commission’s proposal as “a joke,” a “collection of slogans if not lies,” a “blank cheque” given to von der Leyen to centralize power in her own hands further. MEP Ruggero Razza from the Fratelli d’Italia party argues that “the will of parliament was not considered.” At the same time, chairman Johan Van Overtveldt referred to von der Leyen’s choice to announce the MFF to the press before Serafin concluded his presentation in the House as an “unfortunate incident.”

The M5s delegation labels the proposal as a “total disaster” and an “epochal failure” that increases taxes for citizens, protects US multinationals, and quintuples “money for the arms lobby.” It calls it “a Caporetto and a humiliation” for Italy, which will go from being a net beneficiary to a net contributor to the EU budget.

Instead, the hemicycle welcomed the Commission’s “new efforts to overcome the current deadlock on own resources and present more options for new sources of revenue for the EU budget”, such as excise duty on tobacco, a corporate resource (CORE) and the proposed duties on e-waste and e-commerce, which should bring in around EUR 308 billion in total. However, here too, the co-rapporteurs call for greater ambition to match the contributions of the chancelleries with resources commensurate with the challenges the EU faces.

Negotiations on the next MFF will last until 2027, when the current budget expires. If Parliament maintains the hard line indicated today, there could be a full-blown power struggle between the various institutions: the Commission, which will want to try to keep changes to its proposal to a minimum, the House, which opposes what it calls an illegitimate sidelining, and the Council, where the member states are split on the issue. The adoption of the co-legislators must take place by an absolute majority of the European Parliament and unanimity among the 27 member states.