Members of the European Parliament warn that the new national plans could determine almost half of the EU budget

Members of the European Parliament have launched parliamentary work on national and regional plans for the EU budget 2028–2034, warning that the Commission's proposal could fundamentally change the way nearly 44% of the future multiannual financial framework is managed.

The launch of parliamentary work on the regulation regarding national and regional partnership plans marks one of the most sensitive moments in preparing the EU budget for the period 2028–2034. This is not about adjusting budget lines or marginal redistributions, but about a change in architecture that could redefine the way nearly half of the future multiannual financial framework is managed.

In short
1.Almost 44% of the future EU budget is expected to be managed through national plans.

2.Members of the European Parliament fear a recentralization of decisions at the governmental level.

3.Cohesion policy is described as the "soft power" of the Union.

4.Agriculture demands the maintenance of CAP funding in real terms.

5.Parliament claims a central role in defining the rules of the MFF 2028–2034.

The fact that the Commission's proposal targets approximately 44% of the MFF explains the unusually harsh tone of the rapporteurs of the European Parliament. From the very beginning, MEPs have conveyed that this file will not be treated as a simple technical reform, but as a political and institutional turning point. Karlo Ressler (EPP, Croatia), the rapporteur for the Budget Committee, explicitly described the regulation as a "make-or-break point," indicating that the stakes go far beyond the accounting balance of the budget.

The central element of the proposal is the merging of several EU policies – from agriculture and cohesion to fisheries, food security, or social dimensions – into national plans managed through budgetary "envelopes." In the Commission's logic, this model would provide more flexibility and allow investments to be adapted to the specific needs of each member state.

For Parliament, however, this flexibility hides a major risk: the recentralization of decisions and the weakening of the common character of European policies. Andrey Novakov (EPP, Bulgaria), the rapporteur for regional development, expressed this concern unequivocally, insisting that Parliament must ensure that the plans are "more regional than national, more cohesive than divisive." The message is clear: if regions, cities, and rural areas are pushed into the background, cohesion policy risks losing its very reason for being.

One of the most relevant angles of this file is the reinterpretation of regional policy as a tool of soft power. Novakov emphasized that the 780 billion euros managed through these plans are not just money, but political capital. In a context marked by geopolitical instability and internal pressures, EU investments are "appreciated when they are needed" and strengthen the legitimacy of the European project at the local level.

This reading explains why Parliament insists on maintaining a strong regional dimension. If funds are perceived as mere national transfers, the direct link between the EU and the final beneficiaries fades. In contrast, when investments are visible in communities, cities, and regions, the Union is "cherished and remembered," as the REGI rapporteur put it.

In parallel with the debate on cohesion, agriculture emerges as a second sensitive front. Elsi Katainen (Renew Europe, Finland), the rapporteur for the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, drew attention to the fact that the proposal contains a significant change compared to the traditional structure of the MFF and that nearly half of the budget is at stake. In this context, her demand is explicit and unambiguous: funding for the future Common Agricultural Policy must "at least be maintained at the current level, in real terms."

The AGRI message is one of continuity and stability. For Parliament, the reform of the budgetary architecture cannot become a pretext for eroding agricultural funding or for diluting the two pillars of the CAP. This point is essential, especially at a time when pressures on the EU budget are increasing, and competition among priorities is becoming more intense.

Beyond numbers and sectoral policies, the file on national and regional partnership plans opens a classic but amplified institutional conflict: who controls EU money and in whose name. The Commission proposes a more integrated model at the national level, while Parliament claims a central role for regions and for the democratic control of allocations.

The fact that MEPs talk about "co-writing the rules" together with regions and local authorities indicates a clear intention to rebalance power in the upcoming negotiations with member states. It is not coincidental that Parliament is preparing an interim report in parallel and that the plenary vote is scheduled for May 2026: the European legislature is strengthening its position ahead of the final confrontation on the MFF.

In essence, this reform is not just about efficiency or simplification, but about the model of the European Union that will be financed in the next decade. A Union in which national governments become the main filter for investments or one in which regions and communities remain central actors of common policies.

Through the tone and content of the statements, the European Parliament conveys that it will not accept a "stealthy" transformation of the EU budget. The file on national and regional partnership plans is treated as a test of resilience for European cohesion, for the role of Parliament, and for the Union's ability to remain more than a sum of national priorities wrapped in a common framework.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/analize/europarlamentarii-avertizeaza-ca-noile-planuri-nationale-pot-decide-aproape-jumatate-din-bugetul-ue