On 15 April, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets voted by a large majority in favour of the interim report on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is due to come into force on 1 January 2028 provided an agreement is reached between the governments and the European Parliament, following preparatory work that began on 7 May 2025, involving fifteen committees providing opinions, as well as the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
The interim report will be discussed in the plenary in Strasbourg on 28 April and voted on 30 April in a debate that must take into account the European Commission’s responses and, possibly the Council, during a session that will also discuss the guidelines for the 2027 budget and the discharge for the 2024 budget and for each institution – which represents an important instrument of democratic control over the sound management of European finances – as well as the debate on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union, which has already sparked a conflict between the centre-right and the centre-left in the European Parliament.
For its part, the European Council has set out the stages of its debates – following the preparatory work carried out during the Danish Presidency (July–December 2025) and now during the Cypriot Presidency (January–June 2026), which will be followed by the Lithuanian Presidency (January–June 2027) and the Greek Presidency (July–December 2027) – which will take place
– on 23 and 24 April 2026, when an informal summit is due to take note of the guidelines set out by the European Parliament but, above all, of the conflicting positions of Member State governments on the distribution of expenditure, revenue projections, the arrangements for repaying the debt incurred under the NGEU, which expires at the end of 2026, and national contributions to the European budget, which risk causing further conflicts if the forecasts released by the European Parliament’s research service are accurate (LINK),
- on 18 and 19 June 2026, when the European Council is due to approve the so-called box, i.e. the overall level of expenditure schematically divided by the European Parliament into four headings: Europe’s social model and quality of life; competitiveness, prosperity and security; Global Europe; human resources,
- and then three summits between October and December 2026 (15–16 October, 26–27 November, 17–18 December) in the unlikely event that an agreement is reached by the end of 2026.
In the meantime, there will be numerous meetings of finance ministers and ministers for European affairs, interspersed with COREPER meetings, as well as negotiations between governments and MEPs (not provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon), in accordance with the inter-institutional agreement on the MFF.
Alongside the MFF negotiations, ‘trilogues’ will commence on the draft funds regulations that the European Commission has already tabled with the co-legislators, in the belief that an agreement on the MFF will be reached by the end of 2026 and that those draft regulations, adopted under the ordinary procedure, will enter into force by the end of 2027, i.e. before the start of the new MFF.
The European institutions are guilty of excessive optimism and the European Council of institutional arrogance if they imagine that an agreement with the European Parliament can be reached by the end of 2026.
The European Council’s arrogance is compounded by the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that the MFF is to be adopted by the Council of the European Union and not by the European Council, whose sole decision-making power lies in the ability to authorise the Council of the European Union to adopt it by qualified majority under the “passerelle” clause.
From the first MFF (1988–1992), which had a five-year duration, up to the 2021–2027 MFF, an agreement one year before its expiry was reached only in 2005 under Tony Blair’s presidency, a few months after the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes on the Constitutional Treaty, whilst on five occasions the agreement was signed only a few weeks before the new MFF came into force.
With a view to the next stages of the negotiations, we would like to highlight the following points regarding the content of the project, the method and the agenda:
- the overall amount of the MFF, and therefore the corresponding amount of the annual budgets with a degree of flexibility not seen in the past, should, in our view, start from the minimum level proposed by the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, namely 1.27% of Gross National Income, with a percentage that excludes the 0.11% repayment of NGEU debts,
- the increase should be prioritised for the social model and quality of life, namely territorial cohesion, social and environmental sustainability, and directly managed programmes (Horizon Europe, Erasmus+, Agora EU, EU4Health, and Life), alongside the strengthening of international partnerships and pre-accession programmes,
- expenditure on common defence should be excluded from the overall MFF amount and instead be funded by public debt, drawing inspiration from the NGEU model, which is guaranteed by the budget and based on a legal framework that respects the EP’s decision-making and oversight powers,
- A campaign to mobilise civil society is needed to ensure that the EP elected in 2029 demands that the new Commission include among its priorities a revision of the MFF to move progressively from 1.1% of the 2021–2027 MFF to 2.2% by 2034,
- the new European Commission should present a new MFF in 2031 so as to effectively move from a seven-year cycle to a five-year cycle,
- the European Commission’s ‘one plan per Member State’ approach is unacceptable,
- it is essential to safeguard and indeed strengthen the principle of respect for the rule of law as a prerequisite for access to European funds,
- a sustainable MFF must be based on new own resources that gradually replace national contributions, building on the Commission’s “basket approach” and adding to the Commission’s proposals new resources that target negative externalities (such as gambling, tobacco, alcohol, luxury goods and the super-rich) in order to guarantee European public goods through a mix of public and private investment,
- the EP’s position will be all the stronger and more authoritative the more it is grounded in public consensus through digital platforms, petitions and European citizens’ initiatives that create a system of participatory budgeting and collective drafting of the MFF,
- Finally, a campaign must be launched in support of the position expressed by the European Parliament: “it will only approve a long-term budget including appropriate and sustainable revenue that is fit for purpose for the EU in a changing world”.
Pier Virgilio Dastoli
20 April 2026