European parliamentarians are facing a crucial decision over the EU’s next seven-year budget, with MEPs demanding billions more for defence, competitiveness and traditional programmes as member states push for a tighter settlement.
MEPs used a debate in Strasbourg last week to warn that they will not accept cuts to an already stretched spending plan.
Costas Mavrides of the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) speaking to en.philenews said “the European Parliament’s position on the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is more ambitious than those of the Commission and the Council.
“In general, during strategic discussions, we, as the European Parliament, call for a stronger budget that puts citizens at its centre,” he added.
At the heart of the dispute is the size of the next MFF, which will determine how the EU spends its money from 2028. Parliament is seeking a budget of around €1.78tn in 2025 prices, equivalent to 1.27% of EU gross national income, with repayment costs for the €750bn NextGenerationEU recovery fund kept outside the main spending ceiling. That represents an increase of about 10% on the European Commission’s proposal.
The vote comes as national governments prepare to set out their own negotiating position, creating the prospect of a prolonged confrontation between the parliament’s call for greater spending and pressure from some capitals to limit the size of the EU budget.
Siegfried Mureşan, the parliament’s co-rapporteur on the MFF, warned that any reduction below the Commission’s proposal would be unacceptable. “Any cuts to the budget, which would weaken Europe in the years ahead, will not be a basis for the consent of the Parliament.”
Mureşan further argued in Wednesday’s press briefing that the EU budget had failed to keep pace with the growth of national spending, despite the perception in some member states that Brussels was continually demanding more money.
His fellow co-rapporteur, Carla Tavares, said Europe was no longer confronting a series of temporary emergencies but “structural challenges”, including competitiveness, energy security, defence, climate change, education and health.
What does this mean for Cyprus?
For Cyprus, the battle over the EU’s next seven-year budget is more than an argument over Brussels spending. It could determine how much money flows into the island for regional development, agriculture, infrastructure and the green transition after 2027.
The stakes are particularly acute because Cyprus has played a central role in trying to broker the compromise. During its EU Council presidency, Nicosia proposed cutting the European Commission’s €1.76tn draft budget by 2%, to about €1.73tn, while seeking to protect cohesion and agricultural spending.
That puts Cyprus in an unusual position as parliamentarians now push in the opposite direction, calling for a substantially larger budget to meet the EU’s growing demands on defence, competitiveness, energy and security. Cyprus received about €969m from EU cohesion-policy funds for the 2021-27 period, money supporting regional development, employment, social policy and the transition to a greener economy.
“In addition, it is important for Cyprus in particular that new European funding calls support, above all, housing, which is a fundamental right, as well as defence and energy security, given the Turkish occupation and aggression,” said Mavrides.
He added that, “for the Republic of Cyprus, such EU-funded infrastructure projects also carry geopolitical significance in light of continued Turkish expansionism.”
The eventual settlement will therefore matter not only to the institutions in Brussels but to the size and shape of EU investment available in Cyprus for the seven years from 2028.
For Nicosia, the challenge is to defend its share of traditional EU funding while making the case for a budget capable of financing the bloc’s newer priorities. The parliamentary vote is the latest step in what is likely to be a prolonged negotiation between MEPs and national governments over where Europe’s limited money should go.
Why is the MFF such a contested issue
The dispute matters well beyond the Brussels institutions.
The MFF sets the spending framework for seven years, determining the resources available for agriculture, poorer regions, research, infrastructure, climate policy, security and the EU’s emerging industrial and competitiveness agenda.
Parliament has already made clear that it regards its proposed increase as a floor rather than a starting point for cuts. In April, MEPs adopted their negotiating position by 370 votes to 201, with 84 abstentions, calling for the MFF to be set at 1.27% of EU GNI.
Wednesday’s debate therefore sets the terms for the next stage of a much larger bargaining process. If parliament holds its position, the battle will move to negotiations with national governments over the size of the pot, the distribution of spending and, ultimately, who pays for Europe’s expanding list of priorities.
Mavrides concluded that the “Council’s recent proposal under the Irish Presidency does not meet the European Parliament’s call and falls short of what the current circumstances demand, particularly given that European citizens expect the EU to find solutions to the everyday challenges they face in making ends meet.”
The final MFF will require unanimity among member states in the Council and the consent of the European parliament, giving MEPs a significant veto over any settlement they believe falls short of their demands.
(Sources: European Commission, European Parliament)
Read more:
