EU budget, von der Leyen guarantees CAP and Cohesion continuity—but the new structure doesn’t change

Brussels – The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has taken half a step back and one forward on the controversial plan for the EU’s next multiannual financial framework (MFF). She doled out some small concessions on the role of the regions and agricultural policy, but without questioning their amalgamation into a single fund and the division of the budget into national plans. This might be enough to blunt the clear opposition of the EU Parliament and the member states and get the negotiations started. 

The first feedback—from the institution most in the firing line, the European Parliament—will come within 48 hours, on Wednesday 12 November, when von der Leyen will address the plenary session to discuss the Union’s next seven-year budget. In order not to take a beating, the EU leader met today (10 November) with the President of the EU Parliament, Roberta Metsola, and with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, representing the EU Council of which Copenhagen holds the six-month presidency until the end of the year.

 A quick discussion, which lasted less than an hour, at the end of which von der Leyen said in a post on X that the European Commission had “clarified and strengthened our objectives in three key areas: securing the role of the regions,
reinforcing the identity of the Common Agricultural Policy and
enhancing governance.” The EU leader added, “We now have a solid understanding of the proposals and a clear path forward.”

Von der Leyen had prepared the ground with a letter, delivered yesterday to the heads of the two co-legislators, in which she outlined the changes she is willing to concede to the Commission’s proposal presented in July. Basically, without touching its contested architecture—which envisages the merging of CAP and Cohesion into a single fund and the transfer of the management of resources from the regions to the governments, through national plans—von der Leyen suggested the introduction of a “rural objective”, which would oblige member states to allocate at least 10% of the resources of the national plans to agriculture and the regions. “It is possible to introduce a “regional control” to ensure further the full involvement of regional authorities in the preparation, implementation, and evaluation of the plans, as well as a clear right of regional authorities to dialogue directly with the Commission,” the leader added in the letter. 

After that, the Commission put on the table a series of “specific safeguards” to reduce the risk of national governments cutting payments to local authorities, in addition to the €218 billion guarantee for the most disadvantaged areas already proposed in July. Von der Leyen proposed that if regions in transition and more developed regions are allocated resources that are “more than 25 per cent less” than those dedicated to them in the current financial framework, the Member State “will have to provide a justification based on objective criteria,” including whether economic, social, and territorial disparities have been reduced and changes in population size. 

On the other point raised vociferously by the EU Parliament—concerning the risk of an excessive centralisation of control powers in the hands of the Commission—von der Leyen defended her proposal, which “respects the institutional balance of the Union established by the treaties and strengthens the role of both arms of the budgetary authority.” According to the president of the EU executive, the role of the European Parliament and the Council in the guidance mechanism—the body that will have to identify political priorities for national and regional partnership plans—”should be strengthened in the interinstitutional agreement.” Von der Leyen cut a long story short, assuming that the co-legislators would always supervise the allocation of funds.

With the proposed changes, the Commission “is ready to support the European Parliament and the Council in the process leading to the adoption” of the next MFF, von der Leyen concluded. For Metsola, “the proposals represent a good step forward and the process will continue,” starting on Wednesday, in a debate that—judging by the first reactions—promises to be very tense in any case. Valentina Palmisano, MEP for the 5 Star Movement, denounced “a façade operation,” a mere “make-up” by von der Leyen. For the Dem Dario Nardella, the changes “remain largely insufficient and in no way address the various critical issues raised by the European Parliament over the past months.” For Coldiretti, the president of the European Commission remains “off track.”

The Danish EU Council Presidency did not comment on the meeting’s outcome. Among member states,unrest is not necessarily about an architecture that ultimately gives national governments more autonomy, but rather about numbers. For several capitals, a budget of almost 2 trillion, to be achieved through an increase in national contributions from 1.1 to 1.26 per cent of Gross National Income, is unacceptable. But the chapter on the figures that will fill the budget is yet to be opened.