Fitto to Parliament on EU budget: ‘Cohesion is not dead, have faith’

Brussels – Doubts, criticism, attacks, and even sarcasm: on the day after the presentation of the multi-year budget proposal (MFF 2028-2034), the Committee on Regional Development welcomes Cohesion Commissioner Raffaele Fitto in a far from relaxed manner. They target the idea of the “centralization” of cohesion policy, as it is disliked by the Populars (EPP), Socialists (S&D), Liberals (Re), Greens, the Conservatives (ECR), and the Sovereignists (PfE).

 “Mr Fitto, I appreciate the courage to be here today, but coming here today is like going to the United States after Pearl Harbor,” came the welcome from Andrey Novakov, of the EPP, who labeled the proposal put on the table as a disaster. “We will not be able to accept this approach,” warns Jacek Protas, also of the Popular. From the ranks of the Greens, the Slovenian Vladimir Prebilic’s attack was even more strongly: “In my country, we have the custom when a person dies: gathering the relatives of the deceased, eating together, and discussing how the person died. Here it is the same thing: we have the death of cohesion in front of us.” Interventions that lead Fitto to respond in tone: “If one has a faith, as I have, and believes in resurrection, one is not dead.”

Hearing of the executive vice president of the European Commission, Raffaele Fitto, in the Committee on Regional Development of the European Parliament [Brussels, July 17, 2025]

The Executive Vice-President of the European Commission tries to respond, explaining that the Parliament’s vision is wrong. Offering figures, he emphasizes that in the EUR 865 billion single fund, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is worth EUR 381 billion (EUR 294 billion for direct payments and EUR 87 billion for rural development), migration is worth EUR 34 billion, and cohesion is worth EUR 450 billion. Of this 450 billion, 218 billion goes to the least developed regions. In short, “the deceased is not dead,” Fitto said. 

However, the structure of the new cohesion policy is not well-received. The state-region partnership plan “centralizes,” and this does not sit well with the Socialists and the Liberals. “We want to defend a decentralized cohesion, which we do not see here,” thunders Sergio Gonçalves (S&D), echoed by his group colleague Nora Mebarek: “There was a promise not to re-nationalize cohesion, and now we have this proposal. My colleague Novakov says you are brave, I say you are reckless to come here.” And he reiterates: ‘Dismantling cohesion is tantamount to dismantling the European Union.” For the Liberals, Sandro Gozi tries to tone it down, albeit slightly: “If we are not facing the funeral of cohesion, we are certainly facing a worrying situation. We see a dangerous nationalization of cohesion.” At the same time, Lurica Karvasova speaks of betrayal: “Von der Leyen had pledged to leave the regions at the centre of her mandate…”

 https://www.eunews.it/2025/07/17/germania-paesi-bassi-e-ungheria-lattacco-al-qfp-di-von-der-leyen-arriva-dai-fronti-piu-diversi/ 

On behalf of the conservatives (ECR), the first to intervene is Denis Nesci (FdI). He is the only one who avoids harsh tones towards Fitto, to whom, however, he cannot hide the fact that “we do not agree with the method” with which the budget proposal was presented and “the little information” on the dossier, which Fitto does not bring to the committee anyway. Krzysztof Hetman was peremptory, on behalf of the Polish members of the ECR: “I didn’t think cohesion would finance the second pillar of the CAP. Von der Leyen’s vision is terrible.”

The criticism does not end there. Rody Tolassy expresses the reservations of the Patriots for Europe: money in exchange for cohesion reforms “is political blackmail, it is Brussels that wants more conditionality.” While from the ranks of laSinistra, Pasquale Tridico, invites everyone to get to work: “I believe that this European Parliament can help rethink all this.” Fitto listens and tries to counter: “I am neither reckless nor brave, I am here to do my duty,” he replies in an attempt to shrug off unfriendly interventions. Then, linking up with the funereal comparison that characterizes the debate, he adds: ‘We mustn’t talk about death, let’s talk about life. At most, let’s start with a diagnosis first.” Indeed, not the reassurance the MEPs were asking for.