{"id":8298,"date":"2025-07-18T09:59:05","date_gmt":"2025-07-18T07:59:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/?post_type=article&p=8298"},"modified":"2025-07-18T10:00:49","modified_gmt":"2025-07-18T08:00:49","slug":"il-proposta-tal-bagit-mhix-bizzejjed-biex-tindirizza-l-isfidi-tal-ewropa-jghidu-l-mpe","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/article\/il-proposta-tal-bagit-mhix-bizzejjed-biex-tindirizza-l-isfidi-tal-ewropa-jghidu-l-mpe\/","title":{"rendered":"Budget proposal \u201csimply not enough\u201d to meet Europe’s challenges, lead MEPs say"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

MEPs are sounding the alarm on the Commission\u2019s proposed long-term budget and warn that the 1.26% spending ceiling will force cuts to flagship programmes while debt repayments loom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parliament\u2019s co-rapporteurs on the EU\u2019s long-term budget, the multiannual financial framework (MFF), Siegfried Mure\u015fan (EPP, RO) <\/a>and Carla Tavares (S&D, PT)<\/a>, and co-rapporteurs for own resources Sandra G\u00f3mez L\u00f3pez (S&D, ES) <\/a>and Danu\u0161e Nerudov\u00e1 (EPP, CZ) <\/a>issued the following joint statement on Wednesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The budget maths do not add up<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The co-rapporteurs for the MFF highlight a fundamental flaw in the Commission\u2019s plan: with a budget at just 1.26% of gross national income that includes 0.11% of GNI for NextGenerationEU debt repayments, and taking into account inflation, the EU will be standing still. This draft budget does not leave sufficient funds for critical priorities including competitiveness, cohesion, agriculture, defence, climate adaptation and the investment necessary for a sustainable economy that works for all, they argue. The starting point of the proposal shows an astonishing lack of ambition. \u201cHowever you try to package this, what we have is a real-terms investment and spending freeze \u2013 plus repayment of NextGenerationEU borrowing. It is the status quo, which the Commission has always insisted is not an option,\u201d say the co-rapporteurs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe current MFF has clearly shown the risks of putting the repayment of NextGenerationEU interest side by side with programme budgets. It places huge pressure on core priorities and leads to cuts. A stronger EU budget cannot be built on the mistakes of the past,\u201d underlined co-rapporteur Siegfried Mure\u0219an. \u201cWe will not allow the financing of our key priorities to be compromised by the repayment of NextGenerationEU,\u201d stated co-rapporteur Carla Tavares.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key programmes at risk<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parliament has already expressed serious concerns about the proposed structure, warning that pushing successful programmes into \u201cumbrella mega-funds\u201d risks undermining proven policies that have delivered concrete results and improved living standards. Carla Tavares went on to emphasise that \u201cthe EU is based on solidarity, and economic, social, and territorial cohesion,\u201c underlining that \u201cupward convergence is a defining factor of the EU project.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MEPs are particularly worried about proposals that could weaken regional and local authorities’ role in managing funds, and pitting farmers against regions, or regions against national governments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Siegfried Mure\u0219an insisted that: \u201cWe will not approve a budget that promotes fragmented national plans with no link to European objectives. Europe needs a shared vision \u2013 not 27 separate shopping lists. A true EU budget cannot be reduced to the lowest common denominator of national preferences.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democratic oversight under threat<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The MFF co-rapporteurs are \u201cvery alarmed by elements of the proposal that could sideline the role of the European Parliament, the only directly elected institution, as co-legislator with both budgetary and discharge authority\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They insist that any new performance-based mechanism for member states to access funds must include robust parliamentary oversight and cannot circumvent democratic scrutiny of EU spending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe budget is not a cash machine for the European Commission\u201d, warned Siegfried Mure\u0219an, while vowing to defend Parliament\u2019s power to oversee it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe proposed budget must be transparent, and guarantee that Parliament maintains full prerogatives over budget allocation and monitoring, backed by a detailed budget structure that allows for meaningful oversight\u201d, Carla Tavares demanded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the revenue side, member states must deliver<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sandra G\u00f3mez L\u00f3pez and Danu\u0161e Nerudov\u00e1, the rapporteurs on own resources, stated that: “We welcome the Commission’s new efforts to break the current stalemate on own resources and to present more options for new sources of revenue for the Union budget. We take note of the new proposals including a tobacco excise duty, a corporate resource for Europe (CORE), and duties on e-waste and e-commerce. Member states have no excuse now to not reach an agreement on new revenue sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWithout a strong and diversified revenue base \u2014 including genuine new own resources that don\u2019t compete with national budgets \u2014 the EU will not have the funds it needs.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parliament vows to fight<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The MFF co-rapporteurs concluded: \u201cParliament stands ready to use all its powers to their full extent to ensure that the next long-term budget matches the Union’s ambitions and challenges, and is under full democratic oversight. Parliament stands ready to engage constructively but also firmly.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MEPs are sounding the alarm on the Commission\u2019s proposed long-term budget and warn that the 1.26% spending ceiling will force cuts to flagship programmes while debt repayments loom. Parliament\u2019s co-rapporteurs […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":8299,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"spay_email":""},"issuem_issue":[434],"issuem_issue_categories":[8],"issuem_issue_tags":[],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"2.8.8","language":"en","enabled_languages":["mt","en"],"languages":{"mt":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false}}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/8298"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8298"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/8298\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8302,"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/8298\/revisions\/8302"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8299"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issuem_issue","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issuem_issue?post=8298"},{"taxonomy":"issuem_issue_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issuem_issue_categories?post=8298"},{"taxonomy":"issuem_issue_tags","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/weekly.uhm.org.mt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issuem_issue_tags?post=8298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}