In addition, lawmakers strongly object to efforts to centralize money in the hands of national governments along the lines of the Recovery Plan. They fear that if cohesion and agriculture were merged into one package controlled by national governments, it would lead to non-transparency and push local and regional actors out of the decision-making process.
End of reliance on “big brother”
Pressure on own defense capabilities is not only a reaction to the war in Ukraine and Russia’s aggression. It is also a strategic awakening in relation to the United States.
The Vice-President of the European Parliament, Sophie Wilmès, openly describes the need to change the dynamics of the transatlantic partnership. According to her, Europe must negotiate with the United States as an equal partner, not in the position of “little brother”. However, this requires the Union to be able to provide its own defense and not be dependent on the security umbrella from Washington.
A key point of the new budget is the massive support of the member states that directly border Ukraine, Russia or Belarus, as they bear the greatest burden associated with the protection of the EU’s external borders.
Where to find tens of billions? The game includes cryptocurrencies and gambling
Despite the big plans, however, mathematics does not let go. If Europe wants to invest almost 200 billion euros more, including massive investments in defense and saving old policies, it has to find new sources. In addition, the MEPs request that the costs of repaying the post-pandemic debt from the Recovery Plan (roughly EUR 165 billion) should not be included in the budget ceilings.
So where to take the money? As member states traditionally resist increasing their national contributions, the Parliament comes up with a package of new, so-called own resources. Among the proposed solutions appeared, for example, the taxation of large technological giants – the so-called digital tax, taxes on capital gains from crypto-assets or fees from online gambling games.
These resources should bring approximately 60 billion euros to the European coffers per year. “Ambition without resources is empty,” Tavares adds to the proposals, adding that it is time for the European Council to start discussing these proposals in real terms.
A hard impact on the reality of the member states
The European Parliament’s plans have already run into opposition from the so-called “conservative” group of states (known as frugal states)which include the largest contributors to the EU budget. Governments across Europe are grappling with their own strained budgets, rising debt and domestic health and pension funding problems.
Right-wing German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, for example, strongly rejects new debts at the European level and emphasizes that the Union must be able to set clear priorities – even if this means painful cuts in other areas. A similar position is held by the Netherlands, which demands a significant reduction in the proposed budget and rejects a sharp increase in its contributions to Brussels.
The European Union thus faces months of difficult negotiations. On one side stands the Parliament, which refuses to make compromises between the security and prosperity of the regions. On the other hand, there are member states for which further investment of national finances is politically unpopular.
The result of this clash will determine not only how much money the farmers will receive, but above all whether Europe will be able to guarantee its own security in the coming decade.
