Colombia’s Congress approved the 2027 national budget of 200 billion dollars on October 20, igniting a backlash from opposition lawmakers who say the plan favors debt payments and financial interests over education, peace and regional development.

---

The approval of the General Budget of Colombia for 2027 capped a tense legislative session.

President Abelardo de la Espriella’s government secured passage of the law, worth 634.9 trillion Colombian pesos (about $200 billion), over the objections of the opposition, which was led mainly by the Historic Pact party.

RELATED: Colombia’s First National Strike Against De la Espriella Met With Police Crackdown

Representative María Fernanda Carrascal described the debate as a “disaster” and faulted the national government for refusing to accept any of the 700 proposals submitted by her party. The initiatives sought to channel more resources into public education, support for victims of violence and the regions, she detailed. Faced with the lack of agreement, the opposition walked out of the debate, stating it would not back a measure it considers harmful to the country.

The Historic Pact also questioned the law’s orientation, arguing that the government chose to protect financial entities, oligopolies and the most favored sectors. They further denounced that the project promotes over-indebtedness, which they say will end up shifting heavier tax burdens onto Colombian citizens.

🇨🇴 ¡Colombia tiene Presupuesto para 2027!
El Congreso de la República aprobó por $634,9 billones el Presupuesto de la Verdad, el primer paso para volver a encaminar la economía del país hacia el crecimiento, la responsabilidad fiscal y la atención de las necesidades del país. pic.twitter.com/pHiLhYzVTU

— MinHacienda (@MinHacienda) October 20, 2026

Text reads: “Colombia has budget for 2027! The Congress of the Republic approved the Truth Budget for $634.9 trillion, the first step to reorient the country’s economy toward growth, fiscal responsibility, and meeting the country’s needs.”

Other voices in the legislature added their objections. Senator Jennifer Pedraza of the Dignity and Commitment party (Dignidad y Compromiso, in Spanish) criticized the absence of a fixed allocation to address the consequences of the earthquake that struck on August 10. She questioned the fact that assistance to hard-hit departments such as Risaralda, Chocó and Valle del Cauca depends solely on leftover budget balances.

Senator Ariel Ávila, in turn, lamented the underfunding of resources earmarked for electric infrastructure and energization in non-interconnected zones such as Vichada, Guainía, Arauca, Putumayo and Vaupés. He also pointed to a lack of concern for victims of the armed conflict and what he called a budgetary strangling of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP).

After the law’s validation, Congress gave the Executive 90 days to draft a fiscal adjustment plan, which the national administration has called the Rescue Law. The Ministry of Finance and the cabinet are already holding talks with the International Monetary Fund, a signal that new credit instruments and the conditions attached to them may be on the negotiating table.

Mobilization Set for November

The Historic Pact called on citizens to join a national mobilization on November 24 to reject the budget. The party maintains that the project raises debt service by 46% while cutting investment in the Special Jurisdiction for Peace by 82% and stripping 500 billion Colombian pesos (about $157 million) from the National Learning Service (SENA).

Lawmakers also warned that 14 departments will see their real investment shrink. They denounced that the norm prioritizes debt repayment over the financing of peace, education and regional development. “The complaint is clear: more resources for debt and less for peace, education and the regions,” the party stated on social media.

The mobilization announced for late November now stands as the opposition’s next test of strength. In the meantime, the government’s 90-day clock to deliver its fiscal adjustment plan is running, and the talks with the International Monetary Fund could define the conditions under which Colombia finances its 2027 spending. The opposition has vowed to keep the pressure on, both in the streets and in the legislature.

📢 ¡24 DE NOVIEMBRE: MOVILIZACIÓN NACIONAL!

La bancada del Pacto Histórico llama a la movilización frente al Presupuesto 2027 del Gobierno de Abelardo de la Espriella, por $634,9 billones.

Según la bancada, el servicio de la deuda aumenta un 46%, la inversión de la JEP cae un… pic.twitter.com/F5IYf2YDVb

— Pacto Histórico Oficial (@PactoCol) October 20, 2026

Text reads: “November 24: National Mobilization! The Historic Pact bench calls for mobilization against the 2027 budget of the government of Abelardo de la Espriella, for $634.9 billion. According to the bank, debt service increases by 46%, Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) investment falls by 82%, National Learning Service (SENA) loses $500 billion, and 14 departments will receive less real investment. The denunciation is clear: more resources for debt and less for peace, education, and regions.”

Budget watchdog UTAO (full title: Technical Budget Support Unit) is querying the government’s forecasts for employment growth and prices in 2027, highlighting discrepancies with recent data. In its analysis of

The post Budget watchdog queries government’s 2027 forecasts for employment, prices  appeared first on Portugal Resident.

MEPs have put themselves on a collision course with EU governments by rejecting plans for a 17-percent cut in foreign spending – instead demanding additional spending worth €25bn. 

Earlier this month, the Irish government, which holds the six-month rotating EU council presidency, proposed that €38bn of cuts be made from the ‘Global Europe’ heading, which covers foreign aid, as part of an overall package of €141bn of cuts to the seven-year EU budget, known as the multi-annual financial framework (MFF). 

But in a vote on Monday evening (19 October), the European Parliament’s development committee instead backed a dedicated minimum budget of €25bn for humanitarian aid, as well as dedicated budget lines for a Gaza reconstruction fund and for candidate countries. Put together, that would mean a €25bn increase on the EU Commission’s original budget of €200bn for the Global Europe heading. 

The position agreed by MEPs, by a 61-to-34 vote margin, will eventually form the basis of negotiations between MEPs and ministers when EU governments agree their position on the budget. 

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

European Union governments have agreed a negotiating position on new agricultural market rules intended to take effect under the bloc’s 2028–2034 budget, advancing reforms to support arrangements for farmers while leaving the most contentious financial questions unresolved.

The Council approved its partial negotiating mandate on Monday, 19 October, covering changes to the Common Market Organisation regulation, which governs agricultural markets across the European Union.

The proposals include new arrangements for wine producers, protein crops and oilseeds, revised marketing standards, changes to the EU school food programme and provisions intended to improve preparedness for agricultural market disruptions.

However, the agreement does not settle future funding allocations or the broader structure of agricultural subsidies, which remain under negotiation as EU governments attempt to reconcile farming expenditure with competing demands for defence, industrial investment and regional development.

Agricultural markets under review

The Council’s negotiating position retains much of the European Commission’s original proposal while introducing amendments intended to accommodate national differences in agricultural production.

Under the proposed arrangements, sector-specific interventions would become mandatory in several areas, including beekeeping, fruit and vegetables and, under certain circumstances, wine production.

The Council has also proposed flexibility for countries where particular sectors are absent or relatively undeveloped.

For the wine industry, governments would be able to seek exemptions from certain obligations where national circumstances justify different arrangements.

This would allow the framework to retain common European rules while avoiding requirements that would be inappropriate for member states with little or no domestic wine production.

Sectoral interventions form part of the mechanisms through which the EU supports agricultural markets and producer organisations. They can cover measures intended to improve competitiveness, manage production and strengthen farmers’ commercial position.

New provisions for protein crops

The Council has endorsed the establishment of a separate sector for protein crops and oilseeds, replacing existing provisions covering dried fodder.

The objective is to encourage domestic production and reduce dependence on imported agricultural inputs, particularly crops used in animal feed and food production.

European livestock producers rely on protein-rich feed ingredients, including soyabeans, that are often sourced internationally.

Greater domestic production could reduce exposure to fluctuations in global commodity prices, transport costs and disruptions to international supply chains.

Under the Council’s proposal, member states would be encouraged to recognise producer organisations specialising in protein crops and oilseeds.

Such organisations can help farmers coordinate production, marketing and investment, although the effectiveness of the proposed measures will depend on how they are implemented nationally.

The proposals follow broader EU efforts to improve supply security in sectors extending from agricultural inputs to critical industrial materials.

School food and product labelling

The negotiating mandate also preserves the EU school scheme, which provides support for the distribution of fruit, vegetables and milk to schoolchildren.

Under the proposed framework, the programme would move from a school-year financing cycle to a calendar-year system, with transitional provisions intended to prevent disruption during implementation.

The Council has maintained the Commission’s objective of encouraging healthier eating habits by limiting products containing high levels of free sugars and fats.

The proposal also opens the possibility of additional marketing standards for several agricultural products, including protein crops, beef, pork, sheepmeat, goatmeat and rice.

These standards could provide consumers with more detailed information about product origins, subject to the final legislation.

Such measures would also have implications for producers and food businesses, which would need to comply with any new requirements concerning classification, marketing and labelling.

The Council additionally supports the harmonisation of rules covering industrial hemp, while retaining safeguards concerning seed certification and the permitted level of tetrahydrocannabinol.

Farming subsidies remain contested

The agricultural market agreement forms part of negotiations over the next Common Agricultural Policy, which will operate within the EU’s new seven-year financial framework.

Under the Commission’s proposed budget structure, several funding streams, including agricultural and cohesion programmes, would be brought together within national and regional partnership plans.

The restructuring has encountered opposition from governments and agricultural interests concerned that farming could lose protected access to EU funding.

As EU Today previously reported, 17 member states have called for agricultural and regional development expenditure to be protected against further reductions.

The Council’s latest position addresses how agricultural markets should operate rather than determining the size of the financial support available to them.

A separate debate concerns the conditions for receiving direct farm payments, including the definition of an active farmer and the degree of discretion granted to national governments.

Those questions remain central to the continuing CAP negotiations, which are due to return to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26–27 October.

Negotiations move to Parliament

The Council’s partial mandate now provides a basis for negotiations with the European Parliament on the agricultural market provisions.

The legislation will still require agreement between the institutions, while its financing will depend on the eventual settlement of the 2028–2034 budget.

Governments must also complete negotiations on the wider CAP framework, including direct income support and the distribution of responsibility between Brussels and national administrations.

The market agreement reached on 19 October therefore establishes important elements of the proposed agricultural rules, but leaves unresolved the level of financial support available to European farmers after 2027.

The European Parliament has demanded €225 billion for the European Union’s foreign policy and development programmes between 2028 and 2034, challenging proposals by member states to reduce spending under the bloc’s next long-term budget.

The Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Development committees approved their negotiating position on the Global Europe Instrument on Monday, 19 October, by 63 votes to 27, with five abstentions. The proposed allocation represents an increase of €25 billion over the European Commission’s original €200 billion proposal.

The decision comes as negotiations over the wider 2028–2034 EU budget have become increasingly contentious, with Germany and several other net contributors opposing higher expenditure while Brussels faces mounting demands for defence, industrial investment, enlargement and support for Ukraine.

Parliament rejects proposed reductions

Under the position adopted by the parliamentary committees, at least €25 billion would be reserved for humanitarian assistance. MEPs also want dedicated funding for reconstruction in Gaza and financial support for countries seeking EU membership.

The committees are proposing that 20 per cent of official development assistance should be directed towards human development, alongside stronger provisions covering democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Global Europe is intended to consolidate several existing financing instruments into a single framework governing much of the Union’s external expenditure. The programme would finance activities ranging from development cooperation and humanitarian assistance to economic partnerships and support for countries preparing to join the EU.

The Commission introduced the original €200 billion proposal in July 2025. However, subsequent negotiations among member states have raised the prospect of substantial reductions.

Germany, the Netherlands and several Nordic countries have argued that the next budget must reflect the financial constraints facing national governments. Their objections have complicated efforts to accommodate additional spending on European security and economic competitiveness.

The European Parliament has taken a different position, maintaining that reducing external expenditure would restrict the Union’s ability to operate internationally when European security and economic interests increasingly depend on developments beyond its borders.

Ukraine and enlargement funding

The parliamentary proposal would preserve support for Ukraine while seeking to prevent assistance connected with Russia’s invasion from reducing resources available to other partner countries.

Ukraine’s reconstruction, institutional reforms and integration with European markets will require substantial financing over the coming years. However, the precise allocation will depend on negotiations over the wider budget and the financing arrangements eventually approved.

For candidate countries, MEPs want clearer incentives linking EU assistance to progress on political and economic reforms. The proposed framework would also provide Brussels with greater powers to suspend funding where democratic standards, human rights or judicial independence deteriorate.

A separate provision would permit the Commission to suspend payments where partner countries seriously fail to meet obligations concerning the readmission of their nationals.

That measure reflects the growing connection between the EU’s development policy and its migration objectives. Brussels has increasingly sought cooperation on returns and border management as part of agreements with countries receiving European assistance.

The committees have also called for stronger parliamentary supervision of Global Europe, including more detailed reporting by the Commission and regular discussions with the commissioners responsible for implementation.

Difficult negotiations ahead

The financial disagreement extends well beyond external policy. The overall seven-year budget remains contested, particularly over agricultural subsidies, regional development funds, defence investment and repayment of borrowing undertaken during the coronavirus pandemic.

As EU Today previously reported, a group of 17 member states has opposed reductions in agricultural and cohesion spending, adding further pressure to negotiations.

The Parliament’s proposed €225 billion allocation has not been agreed by governments and does not constitute an approved spending commitment.

The committees also approved a mandate for negotiations with the Council, although their position still requires endorsement by the full Parliament, provisionally expected in November.

Meanwhile, member states must settle their own negotiating position, including the financial ceilings governing the programme.

The eventual settlement will determine how much Brussels can spend on development cooperation, humanitarian operations and international partnerships after 2027, and how those commitments can be reconciled with the EU’s expanding domestic financial obligations.

Andy Haldane writes that Conservative economic plans would be best for growth ahead of Healey budget

Badenoch says Britain needs tax cuts.

We need to get out of the way of job creators who make our country richer. We need to encourage risk taking, wealth creation, enterprise.

Britain’s tax burden has never been higher. You are taxed on the heating in your home. You’re taxed at the petrol pump filling up your car. You’re taxed when you insure that car. You’re taxed if you take the family away on holiday. You’re taxed if you stay in the UK thanks to Andy Burnham’s tourist tax. You’re taxed to buy a home, taxed to live in a home, taxed to pass on your home. This is clearly not working. Britain does not feel better off.

Andy Burnham wrote in The Times yesterday about the moral outrage of the current benefit system. But as far as I could work out, his answer is to spend even more on benefits.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

© Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

© Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

Cabinet colleagues have previously called for an increase but chancellor feels it might ultimately cost the Treasury

• UK politics live – latest updates

John Healey will not raise capital gains tax in next week’s budget, despite previous calls to do so from cabinet colleagues including Louise Haigh and Wes Streeting.

The chancellor has decided that any increase might ultimately cost the Treasury if wealthy individuals defer the sale of assets or move them out of the country, according to Treasury sources.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

© Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

© Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

Latest ONS data presents mixed picture amid slump in job vacancies and analysts warning labour market is ‘running on idle’

• Business live – news updates

• Healey to reject calls to raise CGT in budget

Unemployment in the UK has fallen unexpectedly in the final snapshot of the jobs market before John Healey’s first budget next week.

The jobless rate fell to 4.7% in the three months to August, from 4.9% according to the Office for National Statistics. City economists had forecast a rise to 5%.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Susannah Ireland/The Guardian

© Photograph: Susannah Ireland/The Guardian

© Photograph: Susannah Ireland/The Guardian