Portugal’s AD coalition government is set to table the draft State Budget bill for 2027 in Parliament this afternoon, two full days before the deadline. The information was provided in
The post Government to deliver 2027 State Budget bill to parliament today appeared first on Portugal Resident.
When certain governments discuss the EU’s next seven-year budget, their first reflex seems to be: what can we cut? That is the wrong question. The real question is not how much the EU budget costs, but how much an insufficient budget will cost us all.
Economic benefits of EU membership are estimated to be two to six times the financial contribution of individual member states. For every euro we contribute to the EU budget, we can receive up to six euros in return.
That is the power of investing together: European investment delivers more than fragmented national spending. And it does so with a budget of just one percent of EU GNI, while national budgets can reach 50 percent.
The EU budget is not simply money transferred from national capitals to Brussels: it is an investment that creates value benefiting citizens through stronger economies, better infrastructure, food security, cutting-edge research, educational opportunities, regional development, and security.
Ultimately, all member states benefit from the added value created by the EU, making the concept of ‘net contributors’ obsolete.
Easing the pressure on national contributions is a legitimate objective, and it has a clear solution: an EU revenue reform.
The European Parliament supports the basket approach of the European Commission on new own resources and its proposals. It also proposed three additional options capable of generating substantial revenue by 1 January 2028: a digital service levy on major platforms (€25.2bn per year), a levy on online gambling (€3.9bn per year) and a crypto-assets-based own resource (€3bn per year).
Our position is clear: large global companies that benefit most from Europe’s single market should contribute fairly to the EU budget that makes those benefits possible.
Cutting the EU budget may look like saving money. But if it means weaker competitiveness, less social investment and a less secure Europe, we save nothing and taxpayers foot the bill.
The European Union’s common budget has not grown in real terms for 40 years. On the contrary, its purchasing power has been steadily eroded due to high inflation. The current EU budget has lost around 10 percent of its purchasing power compared to when it was adopted in 2020.
A more ambitious EU budget does not automatically mean that member states will have to contribute substantially more from their national budgets. When amounts are compared in constant prices and as a share of the size of the European economy – like with like – a more realistic picture emerges.
In terms of spending capacity, and without counting repayment of the Covid-19 recovery fund (NextGenerationEU), the commission’s proposal for the 2028-2034 budget would be below the relative size of the current 2021-2027 MFF at the time of its adoption.
Even with parliament’s proposed increase for key EU programmes, member states’ contributions would still not substantially increase.
Let us not forget: Europeans benefit considerably more than their countries’ headline contributions suggest. The single market is the clearest example. By removing barriers between 27 economies, it creates opportunities and delivers growth that no country could generate alone.
By reducing the budget, the EU and its member states will have less capacity to deliver the economic and social benefits that citizens expect. We’ll have less cohesion, less competitiveness, a weaker agricultural sector, less global influence, reduced social investment and a much less secure Europe. And this also comes at a cost. A big one.
Instead of “what can we cut” we should be asking ourselves, “how can we finance a budget that delivers more for all”.
If we genuinely want to use limited public resources efficiently, we must invest together. Economies of scale work for successful businesses, and they work for Europe.
Siegfried Mureşan (EPP, Romania) and Carla Tavares (S&D, Portugal) are the parliament’s co-rapporteurs on the EU budget, also known as the multiannual financial framework (MFF)
Russia is spending more on the war than at any point since it began. Russia's military funding is on track to hit a record this year after President Vladimir Putin added almost $60 billion to the outlays set in the budget, Bloomberg reports, citing people close to the government.
Defense spending is expected to approach about $199 billion by the end of 2026, roughly 40% above the plan Moscow announced in late 2025. That reverses the course of a year ago, when the Kremlin meant to slow military growth, narrow its deficit, and rebuild reserves drained by the war.
Putin ordered the shift late last year, after concluding that talks with the US in Alaska would not produce an acceptable deal to end the fighting, the report says.
By January, the Kremlin judged an agreement with Ukraine to be out of reach, and the government began accelerating advance payments to defense firms and raising other war-related spending.
"The government is finally budgeting for a prolonged war in Ukraine, but still understates its cost," Bloomberg Economics economist Ekaterina Vlasova said.
Paying for the war has blown out the budget. The projected 2026 deficit has climbed to more than $81 billion, up from about $44 billion as first planned, and the government covered the extra spending through increased domestic borrowing and gold sales.
The spending is not set to fall soon. Under the budget plans, Russia's military outlays reach about $200 billion in 2027, then ease to $194 billion in 2028 and about $191 billion in 2029, a signal that Moscow is planning for a long war.
Earlier, Euromaidan Press reported that Russia was raising 2027 defense spending by 27% to a record, even as its deficit widens and oil and gas revenues fall.
Europe’s Green party has called on the European Commission to exercise the powers it previously used during the Ukraine war to tax the exceptional profits made by big oil and gas companies during the ongoing conflict in Iran.
“There are models in Europe that we can use to tax these super profits,” German MEP Rasmus Andresen told a European Parliament debate in Strasbourg on Wednesday (7 October), in his call to crack down on Iran-crisis profiteering.
The Strasbourg debate came after Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Spain wrote to Ireland’s finance minister in August calling for an EU-wide framework to tax windfall profits.
Ireland holds the rotating EU presidency and can set agendas in the EU Council until the end of the year.
Several of those in the group of six EU states already put in place energy windfall taxes since this summer, ranging from 60 percent levies on excess fuel profits in Poland to 33 percent in Portugal.
Many other EU countries oppose introducing another tax at European level, which would require unanimity among all 27 member states to put in place.
But for his part, the Greens’ Andresen told MEPs in the hemicycle on Wednesday: “I don’t understand how despite the fact that there is this initiative from these six member states, that the commission is not taking action.”
Estimates from NGO Transport and Environment found that excess profits of €7.5bn were seen by eight oil companies alone in the first half of 2026 in Europe.
The figures were twice what they had made in the previous quarter.
The EU had reacted to soaring energy prices after Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine in 2022 with a special “solidarity” tax on oil and gas firms, said groups on the Parliament’s left.
A commission assessment found that the measure raised €28bn in 2022-2023.
A senior official representing the Irish presidency, Thomas Byrne, said on Wednesday that windfall taxes “could be considered to respond to the concern related to the rising cost of living“.
But energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen poured cold water on appeals for EU-level action, saying “corporate taxation falls mainly in the realm of national competence” in legal terms.
Andresen’s fellow Green MEP, Marie Toussaint, said taxing Iran profits could be used “to pay for the energy transformation” in Europe, in the context of difficult talks on the EU’s next multi-annual European budget.
If they were not taxed, “how can they be exonerated from all responsibility in the rise of prices at the gas station?,” said the French vice-president of the Greens group.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Portugal’s minority government has secured a clearer path to passing its next State Budget, after PS Socialists signalled they would allow the proposal through its first parliamentary vote — a
The post Budget breakthrough: President welcomes PS-Government compromise appeared first on Portugal Resident.
Marine Le Pen has presented a five-year fiscal programme under which a National Rally administration would seek €140 billion in net savings by 2032, restore France’s primary budget balance within 18 months and bring the headline deficit back below the European Union’s three per cent threshold by 2030.
The proposals, presented on Tuesday as Le Pen outlined the financial trajectory she would pursue during a presidential term, come as France faces rising borrowing costs and a public debt ratio approaching 120 per cent of GDP.
The scale of the problem was underlined on the same day by France’s Directorate-General of the Treasury. Its latest report on public debt projects the debt ratio at 119.3 per cent of GDP this year before rising to 121.7 per cent in 2027. Debt stood at 115.7 per cent at the end of 2025.
EU Today has already reported that French borrowing costs and concerns over the sustainability of the country’s finances have begun to weigh on the euro and widen the gap between French and German government bond yields.
Le Pen’s programme is therefore aimed not only at French voters but at financial markets increasingly focused on whether Paris can prevent debt from continuing to rise.
According to the proposals outlined on Tuesday, spending reductions would be concentrated heavily in the first three years of a Le Pen presidency. She would also seek to introduce what she calls a constitutional “golden rule”, requiring successive governments to reduce the budget deficit each year.
The measure would be put to a referendum and is intended to make deficit reduction binding beyond an individual government’s annual budget decisions.
Le Pen has also proposed reducing France’s public debt to around 112 per cent of GDP by 2032. That would reverse the trajectory currently expected by the French government, although the National Rally’s assumptions would depend on its ability to deliver the proposed savings and on economic growth during the next presidential term.
Among the most politically significant proposals is a plan to restrict France’s net contribution to the EU budget to €5 billion. The party argues that some European spending should instead be financed through harmonised taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol.
Le Pen also expects substantial savings from tighter immigration controls and the introduction of the National Rally’s proposed “national preference” rules for access to parts of the welfare system. Her programme estimates that measures connected with immigration could eventually produce savings of as much as €29 billion annually.
Other elements include changes to pension policy, reductions in corporate and energy taxation, measures against VAT fraud, the abolition of more than 120 taxes and a reduction in the number of state agencies.
The programme marks an attempt by Le Pen to make fiscal policy a central part of a campaign that has until now been dominated largely by immigration, security and questions surrounding France’s political fragmentation.
The timing is significant. Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s government has itself introduced a difficult fiscal consolidation programme. The 2027 budget presented by the Finance Ministry envisages €54 billion in measures to improve the public finances, including €43 billion contained directly in the state and social-security budgets.
The government expects the deficit to fall from 5.4 per cent of GDP in 2026 to five per cent next year. It forecasts growth of only 0.5 per cent this year before a recovery to one per cent in 2027.
The debt burden is becoming increasingly costly. Interest payments are expected to reach €91.2 billion in 2027, up from €79.2 billion this year, according to the Finance Ministry. By 2030, total public-sector interest costs are projected to reach 3.7 per cent of GDP.
That gives the presidential campaign an economic dimension that is difficult to separate from France’s relationship with Brussels. Paris remains subject to EU fiscal rules requiring a gradual reduction in its deficit, while any attempt to reduce the French contribution to the EU budget would require negotiations with the other member states.
Le Pen enters that debate from a strong electoral position. Recent polling examined by EU Today has placed her ahead in first-round scenarios for 2027, although the final field remains unsettled. EU Today reported in September that Le Pen was polling between 33 and 36 per cent depending on her opponents.
Her latest intervention shifts part of the campaign onto terrain traditionally associated with the centre-right: public spending, debt and the credibility of France’s finances.
With the government attempting to secure parliamentary support for its own austerity measures and French borrowing costs under closer scrutiny, the question of how the country pays for the state is now moving towards the centre of the contest to succeed Emmanuel Macron.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has joined MEPs in urging the bloc’s governments not to gut the EU’s next seven-year budget, as talks on spending reach a critical phase.
“I would like to caution against large cuts. It would risk cutting deep into critical priorities that we all together have agreed on,” von der Leyen told MEPs during a speech in Strasbourg on Tuesday (6 October), ahead of an EU summit on 15 October.
The commission has proposed a budget worth just under €2 trillion, equivalent to 1.26 percent of the EU’s gross national income, a small increase on the previous seven year spending plan. But the so-called ‘frugal’ group of countries, led by Germany, have demanded hefty cuts, complaining that they are contributing too much.
“Having no new financial framework is by far the most financially advantageous solution for Germany,” chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Monday.
But 17 EU countries from Southern and Eastern Europe signed a joint letter last week, demanding that farmers’ subsidies via the Common Agricultural Policy are maintained, as well as spending across the EU’s poorest regions, known as cohesion policy
During a press conference on Tuesday, Siegfried Muresan, the Romanian centre-right MEP who is co-leading parliament’s negotiating team on the seven-year budget with Portuguese socialist and democrat Claudia Tavares, said that there was “still time” for the Irish presidency to avoid proposing “unjustified cuts” that “would make Europe weaker and severely undermine the institutional cooperation between parliament and council.”
Though Muresan conceded that governments did not want to increase their national contributions, “there is a way out”, he said.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Seventeen European Union countries have called for agriculture and cohesion funding to be protected from further cuts as negotiations over the bloc’s 2028–2034 budget enter a decisive phase.
In a letter dated 2 October to Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin, whose government currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, the countries said the overall financing of Cohesion Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy should be maintained in the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
The signatories are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
The initiative follows months of coordination by the so-called Friends of Cohesion. In an earlier joint position published by the Spanish government, members argued that cohesion, agriculture and fisheries remained central EU policies and called for new EU revenue sources to be “genuine, fair, simple and non-regressive”.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Romanian President Nicușor Dan have been coordinating the group at leaders’ level. They are expected to convene another informal meeting alongside the European Council on 15–16 October. The two leaders previously brought the group together ahead of the June European Council as governments sought to coordinate their positions on the budget.
The intervention places the group in direct opposition to Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden.
Those six governments have argued that the Commission’s near-€2 trillion proposal should be reduced by several hundred billion euros. In their joint statement on the 2028–2034 budget, they said national governments were already undertaking fiscal consolidation and that the EU budget could not be exempt from similar pressure. They called for reductions across all spending headings while giving greater weight to security, defence, competitiveness, migration and sovereignty.
EU Today previously reported on the growing pressure from net-contributor countries for deep reductions to the Commission proposal as negotiations moved towards the Irish presidency’s attempt to secure an agreement before the end of the year.
The Commission’s original proposal for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework amounts to almost €2 trillion in current prices, equivalent to 1.26 per cent of the EU’s average gross national income over the seven-year period. It substantially restructures the budget, bringing agriculture, cohesion, fisheries, migration and internal security into national and regional partnership plans while allocating more money to competitiveness, research, defence and other emerging priorities.
Agriculture and regional development have consequently become two of the most sensitive parts of the negotiations.
The Council has already backed the principle of the new national and regional plans, but financial allocations remain unresolved. Its negotiating position specifically leaves the money to be settled as part of the overall MFF talks.
EU Today has followed the dispute since the Cyprus presidency produced a negotiating framework in June that proposed reducing the Commission’s plan by about €32.8bn. The disagreement has since widened as governments attempt to reconcile traditional spending on farmers and poorer regions with growing demands for defence, industrial competitiveness and security.
Revenue is another source of disagreement.
The Commission has proposed five new EU own resources, including revenue connected to the Emissions Trading System and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, a contribution based on uncollected electronic waste, a tobacco excise resource and a contribution from large companies operating in the EU. The proposals are intended partly to reduce reliance on national contributions and help finance repayment of pandemic-era borrowing.
EU Today previously examined the dispute over new sources of EU revenue after leaders asked the Irish presidency to develop financing options alongside negotiations over expenditure.
The Friends of Cohesion have also called for a more gradual repayment schedule for NextGenerationEU borrowing and oppose retaining contribution rebates for wealthier member states. Under the Commission proposal, repayments of principal and interest would amount to a fixed €24bn annually between 2028 and 2034, or €168bn across the seven-year budget period.
Ireland now faces the task of narrowing the gap.
The Council’s timetable for the negotiations envisages the Irish presidency advancing the next negotiating framework ahead of the October European Council, with governments seeking a political agreement before the end of 2026. That would leave 2027 for adoption of the legislation required before the new budget takes effect on 1 January 2028.
An agreement among governments will require unanimity. The European Parliament must then give its consent, while the separate decision governing the EU’s own resources also requires unanimous approval by member states and ratification according to their national constitutional procedures.
With 17 governments now explicitly defending agriculture and cohesion spending and six major contributors demanding substantial reductions, the October summit will bring the central budget dispute directly before EU leaders.
Teachers, firefighters and health workers were among those taking part, with around 170 demonstrations planned nationally. High-school students also blockaded hundreds of schools, extending protests that began over teacher shortages, overcrowded classrooms and conditions in the education system.
The industrial action, accompanied by the traditional violence, places Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s government under additional pressure before ministers present the draft finance and social-security budgets on Thursday, 1st October.
The French Education Ministry reported that 13.71 per cent of teachers participated in Tuesday’s strike across most of metropolitan France and Réunion. Participation reached 15.28 per cent among primary-school teachers and 12.74 per cent in secondary education.
Separate student action affected hundreds of secondary schools.
Protests were reported in Paris, Lille, Lyon, Nice and other cities. Some demonstrations involved clashes with police and damage outside schools, although much of Tuesday’s public-sector action proceeded without major disruption.
The dispute is centred partly on government spending plans.
Trade unions oppose a proposed freeze in the salary index used to calculate public-sector pay and argue that years of inflation have already reduced employees’ purchasing power. Firefighters have also demanded additional resources following the extensive wildfires that struck France during the summer.
The government is preparing its budget against a worsening fiscal background.
France’s public debt has climbed close to 120 per cent of gross domestic product, while the budget deficit remains well above the European Union’s 3 per cent ceiling.
EU Today reported earlier this month that French debt was heading towards 120 per cent of GDP, accompanied by an increase in the premium investors demand to hold French government bonds rather than German debt.
Higher interest rates are adding to the pressure. Debt-servicing costs have become one of the largest areas of central government spending, restricting the room available for tax reductions or additional expenditure.
The government has also reduced its 2026 economic growth forecast to 0.5 per cent.
Finance Minister Roland Lescure has acknowledged that France will miss its earlier deficit target, leaving the 2027 budget with the difficult task of demonstrating a credible path towards stabilising the public finances without provoking further political resistance.
The budget is due to be formally presented on Thursday. The Finance Ministry has confirmed that Lescure, Public Accounts Minister David Amiel, Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Farandou and Health Minister Stéphanie Rist will present the finance and social-security bills following the Council of Ministers.
The argument is taking place while EU fiscal surveillance is itself entering a more demanding phase.
Under the revised Stability and Growth Pact, member states are expected to follow agreed medium-term expenditure paths designed to bring deficits and debt onto sustainable trajectories.
EU Today recently examined how the EU’s fiscal rules face an enforcement test in October, when finance ministers and the European Commission return to national budget compliance. France is one of the countries where implementation will receive particularly close attention because of its debt level, persistent deficit and political difficulty in securing parliamentary agreement for spending reductions.
The domestic parliamentary arithmetic remains difficult. Lecornu’s government does not control an outright majority in the National Assembly, meaning the budget could become the subject of amendments, confidence votes or further negotiations with opposition parties.
The government has previously relied on Article 49.3 of the constitution to pass financial legislation without a conventional parliamentary vote, although use of the mechanism exposes a government to motions of no confidence.
Tuesday’s strikes add another layer to those negotiations. Trade unions have indicated that further action is possible if the budget contains measures they regard as unacceptable. The CGT has demanded changes to planned spending reductions and public-sector pay policy.
The precise scale of the government’s fiscal measures will become clearer on Thursday. For France, the budget will have to address three pressures simultaneously: deteriorating public finances, the EU’s fiscal framework and domestic opposition to further restraint.
Europe Minister Benjamin Haddad said proceeds from penalties imposed on the US technology company should be treated as EU revenue and used to lower the sums governments must pay into the common budget.
The proposal comes as negotiations intensify over the 2028–34 Multiannual Financial Framework, for which the European Commission has proposed expenditure of almost €2 trillion.
Haddad referred to about €4.6 billion in revenue associated with Google penalties and interest.
The proposal is less radical in budgetary terms than it first appears because fines that become final already enter the EU budget as “other revenue”.
The Commission’s explanation of EU budget revenue states that gross national income-based contributions act as the balancing element of the budget after customs duties, VAT-based resources and other revenues — including fines on companies — are taken into account.
Higher income from definitive competition fines can therefore reduce the amount required from national governments.
France is pressing for that mechanism to be applied clearly to the Google proceeds at a time when governments are seeking ways to limit increases in their national payments.
Google has accumulated substantial EU penalties through both competition law and the Digital Markets Act.
In July, the European Commission fined Google €890 million under the Digital Markets Act in two separate decisions.
A €460 million penalty concerned the Commission’s finding that Google gave preferential treatment to its own services in search results. A further €430 million fine concerned restrictions affecting developers’ ability to direct users towards alternative purchasing channels outside Google Play.
Google has contested elements of the EU enforcement regime and has continued legal proceedings over Commission decisions.
EU Today has followed the dispute closely. In September, Google began changing European search results following the DMA enforcement action, while earlier Commission measures generated a wider dispute with Washington over European regulation of US technology groups.
The French budget proposal shifts the issue from regulation towards public finance.
EU governments are currently divided over the Commission’s proposed 2028–34 budget, which averages about 1.26 per cent of EU gross national income.
Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Austria are among governments seeking substantial reductions in the proposed spending level.
EU Today reported this month that five large net contributors were demanding cuts of several hundred billion euros from the Commission proposal.
France also faces a sharp increase in its projected contribution.
Against that background, governments are looking at both expenditure reductions and new revenue streams that could limit demands on national treasuries.
The wider negotiations cover possible EU “own resources” — revenue that flows directly or indirectly to the European budget rather than being provided through conventional national contributions.
Existing resources include customs duties, a VAT-based contribution, a plastics contribution and national payments calculated according to gross national income.
The Commission has also proposed additional sources linked to carbon pricing and other EU policies.
EU Today has previously examined how EU leaders are searching for new revenue sources for the €2 trillion budget while attempting to finance defence, competitiveness, migration, agriculture, cohesion programmes and support for Ukraine.
Company fines differ from permanent own resources because their size is unpredictable and depends on enforcement decisions and subsequent legal proceedings.
A large fine can provide a one-off boost to EU revenue, but it cannot readily finance recurring expenditure across a seven-year financial framework.
Definitive fines have nevertheless affected member-state contributions before. Commission budget amendments have explicitly incorporated competition penalties as additional revenue, reducing the amount that must be raised elsewhere.
France is now seeking to ensure that the Google proceeds are reflected directly in the sums demanded from national budgets.
The proposal comes before another round of negotiations over the Multiannual Financial Framework, where the size of the budget remains unresolved.
With agreement requiring unanimity among all 27 governments, even relatively small sources of additional revenue are becoming part of the bargaining over who ultimately pays for the EU’s expanding spending commitments.
Six frugal countries this week circulated a letter threatening to block a deal on the next EU budget unless “hundreds of billions” of euros in spending was cut.
The Dutch and Germans, ever the most zealous keepers of the frugal flame, want to redirect what remains away from regional and farming funds, towards innovation and defence.
For those following EU fiscal debates, this song will sound familiar. So-called ‘net payer’ countries have never liked sending money to the economic periphery.
In 2013, after a year of bickering, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands killed a European Commission plan for a five percent increase and pushed through the EU’s first-ever budget cut, with farm and cohesion funds taking the biggest hit.
But new research suggests that the frugals may be shooting themselves in the foot.
Last week, Olga Ivanova, a senior researcher at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), published a study in Dutch economics journal ESB calculating what EU money actually does for the Netherlands’ 12 provinces.
And, for most of them, she found that the growth effect of EU investment outweighed their share of what the Netherlands paid into the budget.
Using PBL’s own economic model, she traced 10 EU funding streams between 2013 and 2024, from Horizon science research grants to farm subsidies and regional development money.
Across the Netherlands as a whole, provinces get back about 99 cents in extra growth for every euro paid out to the EU budget.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
As the EU seeks budget cuts to break a stalemate in member states’ talks, women’s rights groups are on the chopping bloc, prompting advocates’ concern that the cause is fading from the common agenda.
Research published on Monday (28 September) by rights initiative MOTERIS showed a consistent loss of funding for feminist organisations across EU countries.
Some groups are also facing political conditions on the money they receive, for instance in Poland and Croatia, alongside groups reporting increasing dependance on unpaid work.
And the trajectory points toward decreased funding in the 2028-2034 EU multi-annual framework (MFF), which is currently being haggled in Brussels, making matters worse.
Feminist groups pointed toward AgoraEU as evidence of the trend – the proposed new single-funding stream is to merge grants for culture, media, equality and civil society under in the same MFF bracket, in what would make equally worthy causes and their defenders compete against one another for diluted resources.
And the ongoing cuts at national level meant that “EU funds are a crucial lifeline for many women’s rights groups where state funding is insufficient,” MOTERIS said.
Small, grassroots rights groups, many of whom MOTERIS represents, find it even harder to access grants due to heavy administrative requirements.
Meanwhile, the Czech Republic and Lithuania served as examples of EU countries whose philanthropy was dependent on external top-ups, making them “more vulnerable to geopolitical shifts, such as the withdrawal of US funding.”
MOTERIS staged a protest to push for MFF support for women’s rights groups outside the European Parliament in Brussels on Tuesday (29 September), ahead of an MEPs’ debate on the topic.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
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.
MEPs are pushing for an EU solidarity mechanism to help patients pay for treatment abroad, arguing that financial barriers are preventing Europeans from exercising rights they have had on paper for more than a decade.
The calls came as Parliament discussed a report commissioned to inform its own-initiative report on modernising patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. The study found that cross-border care accounts for just 0.004% of EU public health expenditure, despite patients continuing to face upfront costs, complex reimbursement procedures and prior-authorisation requirements.
Tomislav Sokol (EPP, Croatia) called the proposed solidarity mechanism a potential “game changer” for vulnerable patients, but challenged Parliament to spell out how it would work.
“How would it work in practice? How would it be financed? Would this be part of the EU budget?” Sokol asked. “We need to know it now, so that we can also use this in negotiations on the future EU budget, in the next MFF.”
Login