EU budget: social funds in the balance, Europarliament calls for more resources and less flexibility

This last point is central to the negotiations. A compromise found between the parliamentary groups of Popularists (EPP), Socialists (S&D), Liberals and Greens would in fact considerably limit, practically eliminate, the flexibility of national governments in allocating funds to the different budget items. To do so, the resources that the Commission had proposed to set aside to cope with unforeseen circumstances would instead be allocated in a binding way to the different expenditure chapters, keeping the amount for agriculture and migration unchanged and increasing that for cohesion and, above all, social.

'We have built a broad convergence between pro-European forces A balance between different priorities is possible,' comments Bonaccini, showing optimism. Sberna, on the other hand, remains more cautious. "I consider it fundamental to work so that the resources allocated to cohesion are at least maintained, if not strengthened, while ensuring a balance with the new European priorities. This can be done through a more effective reallocation of resources and a more targeted use of flexibility,' he says.

Another central point in the negotiations is the size of the EU multi-annual budget, on which the possibility of financing each item obviously depends. "As the European Parliament we are asking for 1.27% of the Gross National Income, i.e. just under EUR 1,800 billion," Bonaccini explained, adding that this is an increase of about 10% compared to the Commission's proposal. The numbers are those also given by the influential EPP MEP Siegfried Mureșan, one of the two rapporteurs for the MFF in the European Parliament's budget committee. The latter will vote on its position on Wednesday 15 April, while the final plenary vote is expected by the end of the month.

On 24 April, the heads of state and government of the 27 Member States, meeting in Cyprus, will also discuss the new European multiannual budget. The negotiations between EU countries are the most important ones because the role of the Europarliament is only to approve (or reject) the agreement that will be reached by the 27 within the Council. Between the position of the latter and that of the European Parliament, however, warns FEPS's Andor, 'the differences are big'. On the one hand, it is hard to imagine that the capitals will give up the flexibility guaranteed to them by the Commission's MFF proposal. On the other hand, some governments, such as the Dutch one, have already made it known that they do not want to increase the budget envelope, but rather ask for it to be reduced. In that case, cohesion policy and social funds would end up being even more penalised.

For this reason, too, the European Parliament seems determined to play all the cards at its disposal. Indeed, according to POLITICO Europe, MEPs are ready to delay negotiations on the numerous sectoral legislations of which the MFF is composed until an agreement on the overall size and architecture of the multiannual budget is found. A press conference by Muresan and the Socialist co-rapporteur Carla Tavares announced for tomorrow morning could clarify this further, but the fear is that the choice could delay the negotiations for much of 2027, until the last possible moment.