“The “Ursula Majority” against Ursula. Group leaders’ letter against the Multiannual Financial Framework

Brussels – All against the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) proposed by the European Commission for the seven-year period 2028–2034. The “Ursula majority” lines up the guns against the Commission President herself in a letter that makes clear the Parliament’s dissatisfaction. The document was signed today by all the majority group leaders: Populars (EPP), Socialists (S&D), Liberals (Renew), and Greens.

European Commission unveils an enormous €2 trillion EU budget from 2028-2034

The EU Commission has adopted the proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) — the budget for 2028-2034.

The new MFF is a big increase from 2020’s €1.21 trillion.

“It is more… pic.twitter.com/UR0YJCsP20

— EU Made Simple (@EU_Made_Simple) July 17, 2025

Nothing is quite right

The crux of the argument can already be deduced from the first lines: “The European Parliament rejects the proposal of the National and Regional Partnership Plans in its current form and calls for an amended proposal to start negotiations,” the leaders write in the note. The issue with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is the manner of distributing the money under the plan for agriculture (CAP) and the cohesion plan, which are merged. In addition, the group leaders denounce a diminution of the Parliament’s role that could create a democratic deficit and call for greater severity toward states that do not play by the rules.

The “democratic deficit”

Accusations already known but summarised this time in a single motion of intent. The main point is the novelty that the executive body plans to introduce: centralised resource distribution. To this, MEPs respond with the rejection of “a Union à la carte“, where each state manages EU funds autonomously. This would lead to fragmentation, loss of solidarity, and distortions of the single market.

The idea put forward by the Commission president is to simplify and cut corners, modifying that transmission belt of funds from Brussels to local authorities. In the new plan, the money would no longer go from the Union to the territory, but from the Union to national governments. The money would be distributed, for the most part, through the mechanism “money for reform,” which would cut the Parliament out of the decision-making process. This is where the MEPs see the “democratic deficit.” 

The elected body calls for greater “involvement in the approval and modification of national plans,” aiming to play a role in “democratic control and transparency.”

PAC and Cohesion

The most political point, however, for the members of the EU Parliament, remains the “unacceptable” cuts (of around 20 per cent) to the agricultural (CAP) and cohesion funds, merged into a single plan that “reduces their effectiveness.” 

“Behind the renationalisation of cohesion and the CAP, there is a specific political design: to weaken the Union by taking voice and resources away from regions and municipalities, commented the MEP from the Partito Democratico Nicola Zingaretti. The President of the European Committee of the Regions, Kata Tüttő, echoes this sentiment: “By recentralising power, Europe risks losing the trust and involvement of the people who make things work: mayors, regional presidents, local communities. The unbundling of the two largest budget packages was considered a “non-negotiable” element by the Parliament, the institution that ultimately has to approve the plan.

A Silent Commission

The Commission is, for the time being, tight-lipped and does not open the door to changes in the draft. Speaking today, budget spokesman Balazs Ujvari, said that the institution is “ready for dialogue with the other co-legislators. We have to understand what their needs are.” It is a pity that the Parliament’s line has remained the same for months, and no change of course has been reported from the Berlaymont Palace.