Production: By Europod, in co-production with Sphera Network.

EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.

Find the full transcript below:

The EU is negotiating its next long-term budget, worth 2 trillion euros. But reaching an agreement among the 27 member states is proving difficult. The deadline is approaching, and the stakes are high.

Will the EU member states be able to agree on the budget? And what are the different options?

The bloc’s next long-term budget covers the period from 2028 to 2032.

The aim is to reach an agreement by the end of this year. Then, in 2027, the European Parliament will have to give its consent, and the political agreement will need to be translated into legislation, with funding allocated to the different programmes.

But with just three months left before the end of the year, reaching a deal on time is proving difficult. A meeting of EU ministers dedicated to the budget last week led nowhere. Countries stuck to their positions.

On one side are the so-called frugals: Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. But they prefer to call themselves “modernisers”. They want to limit spending and are reluctant to increase their contributions to the EU budget.

On the other side are countries worried about receiving less European funding in the years to come.

The European Commission argues that the next budget needs to be bigger than the previous one to address new challenges, including European competitiveness and defence.

And it’s not just the Commission’s view. The European Parliament and many observers share it.

But the countries calling for spending cuts say the EU cannot simply add new priorities to existing ones. They argue that choices have to be made.

So the Commission has proposed another option: increasing the EU’s own resources.

These are revenues that go directly into the European budget, rather than relying entirely on contributions from member states. The idea is to raise additional money without asking national governments to pay more.

But this proposal is also facing opposition from countries calling for spending restraint. They argue that the bloc should not simply look for more money to fund all its priorities.

So how can the 27 countries break the deadlock?

When ministers cannot reach an agreement, the issue is taken up by EU leaders themselves. And that is exactly what is expected to happen in the coming months.

The president of the European Council is planning several meetings of EU leaders before the end of the year, in an attempt to bring countries closer together.

He is even said to be considering a summit lasting three to four days at the end of November, to give leaders enough time to reach an agreement and avoid a difficult December.

But what happens if the 27 countries still fail to agree before the end of the year? There is some room for manoeuvre in 2027. According to media reports, several dates have already been set aside early next year for last-minute negotiations, should an agreement not be reached in time.

But this leaves very little room for delay.

The European Parliament will still need several months to give its consent, and the EU will then have to finalise the legislation and prepare the different programmes.

That brings us very close to 2028, when the new budget is supposed to take effect.

And if everything is not ready by then, the EU does have a mechanism to keep things running.

It can continue covering certain ongoing expenses and payments that have already been committed, even without a new long-term budget in place.

Unlike in the United States, where a budget deadlock can lead to a government shutdown and some public employees being temporarily sent home without pay, the EU has a system designed to avoid such a complete halt.

But this would only be a temporary solution.

It would not provide the certainty needed to launch new programmes or guarantee that all European funding will be available as planned.

Production: By Europod, in co-production with Sphera Network.

EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.

Find the full transcript below:

Rebuilding Gaza will require tens of billions of dollars. European countries have just approved new funding for water and waste management. But with the ceasefire still fragile, can reconstruction really get underway?

The EU has just approved two projects aimed at helping rebuild Gaza. Together, they provide €43m in support for the Palestinian Authority, mainly for water and waste management.

The funding is intended to improve access to drinking water for around one million people in Gaza, restore waste collection and launch pilot recycling programmes.

This comes on top of a much larger €883.6m package announced by the EU in July for Gaza. This is totally independent from the board of peace initiated by Donald Trump.

The European Commission has brought together donors from EU member states, as well as countries such as Norway and Switzerland. The European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development are also involved.

That is the purpose of the donor conferences regularly organised by the Commission. And this format has sometimes been seen as an alternative to the reconstruction efforts led by Trump’s Board of peace.

As far as the Board of peace is concerned, it also made new announcements last week, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

It announced a $2.45bn plan to support reconstruction over six months. Is that significant compared with Gaza’s needs? And do the two funding plans complement each other?

The short answer is: the funding is still far from enough. The needs for rebuilding Gaza are estimated at least $71bn.

The economy has also collapsed, with very little economic activity currently possible in Gaza and unemployment affecting almost the entire population.

But the different funding plans can complement each other.

The Board of Peace six-month plan is divided into dozens of areas of spending. One of the largest is the construction of permanent shelters to replace the tents where many people are currently living.

The plan also includes clearing rubble, rebuilding homes and restoring public transport, among other things.

But reconstruction also depends on security. Is the ceasefire holding, and is Israel committed to allowing aid and reconstruction to move forward? That’s one of the major questions.

European commissioner Dubravka Šuica stressed this point at the UN last week, saying that European assistance relies on clear commitments from Israel to facilitate the implementation of these projects.

Israel has reopened one crossing for international aid, but according to several international reports, it is still restricting the distribution of humanitarian assistance inside Gaza.

And although a ceasefire has been agreed, Israeli military operations targeting Hamas have continued, with civilians among those killed.

According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, 22 Palestinians were killed and 209 injured between 9 and 16 September alone.

Another 21 people were killed on 16 September when a residential building, already damaged during the war, collapsed.

Overall, more than 1,300 people have reportedly been killed in Gaza since the ceasefire began, according to Gaza health authorities.

What’s more, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which is supposed to govern the territory under the peace agreement is still based in Cairo. Israel has not authorised all of its members to enter Gaza.

And the committee says the conditions for carrying out its mandate are not yet in place.

That is another obstacle to reconstruction getting fully underway.

There is one more source of uncertainty: possible Palestinian elections in November. Those elections could also be postponed.

So while funding for reconstruction is beginning to take shape, there are still major questions over security, governance and political stability.