The European Union is currently working on its next long-term financial framework (Multiannual Financial Framework – MFF) for the years 2028–2034, which will determine the EU’s spending priorities over the seven-year period. In May 2025, the European Parliament adopted a resolution outlining its position on the matter. The Parliament’s demands are expected to influence the European Commission’s proposal on the MFF, which is scheduled for publication in July 2025. However, there is still no consensus among member states—particularly concerning the Cohesion Fund and the agricultural budget.
“The MFF is still in the discussion phase. The European Parliament has issued a resolution, and the Commission will present detailed proposals that will also be debated with the Council. We’re still at the beginning of the process,”
said Sven Simon, German MEP and Chair of the EP’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs, in an interview with Newseria.
Parliament Calls for Higher Budget and Strategic Focus
In May, the European Parliament adopted its resolution with 317 votes in favor and 206 against. The resolution calls for a larger MFF allocation than in the 2021–2027 period. MEPs argue that the longstanding cap of 1% of Gross National Income (GNI) per member state is outdated and inadequate in the face of today’s geopolitical challenges. The Parliament highlighted, for example, the €500 billion defense investment gap over the next decade and stressed that the EU budget must play a crucial role alongside national budgets in addressing this.
At the same time, the resolution warns against neglecting social, environmental, and long-term EU policy goals, reaffirming the role of cohesion policy in strengthening the single market, reducing inequalities, and tackling poverty.
The European Commission’s communication from early 2025, titled “The Road to the Next Multiannual Financial Framework”, emphasizes that the next MFF must maximize the impact of every euro spent, focusing EU funding on areas where its intervention brings the most added value.
“The biggest challenge is targeting the funds more effectively. Of course, we need to redirect spending toward defense and joint procurement in that area. But when it comes to innovation and competitiveness, we still have doubts about whether we are moving in the right direction. From the Parliament’s perspective, there is still room for improvement, and this will be discussed in the coming months,”
said Sven Simon.
Opposition to National Plans and the Need for Transparency
MEPs strongly oppose the Commission’s idea of replacing individual EU funds with consolidated national investment plans, a model previously used in the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)—known in Poland as the National Recovery Plan (KPO). In the area of agricultural policy, this would effectively mean the dismantling of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
Instead, Parliament is calling for a clear, accountable structure that ensures transparency, parliamentary oversight, and active involvement of regional and local authorities as well as relevant stakeholders.
Rethinking the “Competitiveness Fund”
The European Parliament also expressed skepticism about the proposed “Competitiveness Fund” which would consolidate multiple existing programs. MEPs argue that this umbrella fund is inadequate and instead call for the creation of a new, targeted instrument to stimulate private and public investment. This fund should be built on the lessons learned from InvestEU and the Innovation Fund, while complementing existing successful programs.
Defense Spending Sparks Controversy
“It’s natural that changes are being proposed for the Cohesion Fund and the agricultural sector to reflect the current context. Defense spending, joint defense procurement, innovation, Horizon Europe, R&D, and AI—all these areas are of great interest to Europeans. But shifting money from one sector to another inevitably leads to disagreement, and time is needed to reach consensus on the new MFF,”
Sven Simon explained.
The Parliament also stressed that the next MFF must be more flexible, allowing the EU to respond to unforeseen events. While bureaucracy for beneficiaries should be reduced, the Parliament firmly rejects granting the Commission greater autonomy without proper democratic oversight.
This concern was triggered by the adoption of the SAFE defense investment program, which includes €150 billion in loans and was passed by member states through a special procedure that bypassed the Parliament—similar to the one used in 2020 for the COVID-19 recovery fund.
“Perhaps the most pressing issue in the reform of the EU budget is the role of the European Parliament. Budgetary control is a fundamental parliamentary prerogative. When the Parliament is completely excluded from decision-making, that is unacceptable,”
emphasized Simon.
MFF Reform Debated at COSAC Meeting
The need to reform the EU’s budget and redefine priorities for the next seven years was also discussed during a plenary session of the 73rd Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs (COSAC), held in the Polish Sejm. The session brought together representatives from the European Parliament and national parliaments of member states.
As the EU prepares for a new budgetary cycle, the debates around spending priorities, governance models, and the role of democratic institutions like the European Parliament are likely to intensify in the months ahead.
