The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to demand a significantly bigger EU long-term budget for 2028-2034, pushing the bloc’s seven-year spending plan to around €1.94 trillion and directly challenging the more restrained approach favored by many national governments.
The move, approved by 370 votes to 201 with 84 abstentions, sets the stage for tense negotiations with the EU Council, where “frugal” net-contributor countries are expected to resist higher contributions while traditional recipients defend funding for regional development and agriculture.
The Parliament’s position calls for spending equivalent to 1.38% of the EU’s gross national income (GNI) – higher than the European Commission’s July 2025 proposal of 1.26% of GNI (roughly €1.76 trillion, including €149 billion for repaying joint pandemic-era debt).
Rapporteur Siegfried Mureșan, a centre-right Romanian MEP, framed the vote as a rejection of austerity: “We believe we cannot do more with less. That is a myth.” He stressed that new priorities such as defence and competitiveness must be “well funded” while traditional pillars — agriculture, fisheries, and regional (cohesion) policy — “continue to be funded” without cuts. Debt repayment from the NextGenerationEU recovery fund, he added, should sit outside the budget ceilings “not at the expense of beneficiaries and programmes.”
This ambitious stance has reignited long-standing divisions between two rival camps in the EU budget battles: the so-called “frugal” countries – primarily Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, often joined by Germany – and the net-recipient nations, mostly in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe, grouped informally as the “Friends of Cohesion.”
The frugal camp: net contributors demand restraint
The frugal states are the EU’s biggest net payers into the common budget, which is financed mainly by national contributions based on GNI, plus customs duties and a slice of VAT. They have historically argued for a leaner budget capped at around 1% of GNI, greater efficiency, performance-based allocation, and stronger conditionality (such as linking funds to rule-of-law compliance or economic reforms). In past negotiations they secured rebates and fought against expansive new spending or joint debt.
Critics in this group view the Parliament’s push for “more money for everything” – protecting cohesion and farm subsidies while adding defence, innovation, and external action – as fiscally irresponsible. They fear it will translate into higher national contributions at a time when many face their own budget deficits and domestic pressures. The Netherlands, for instance, has already signalled that even the Commission’s more modest proposal was “dead on arrival.” Frugal governments worry that without trade-offs, the budget will balloon further, undermining fiscal discipline and rewarding inefficiency in cohesion spending, which they see as poorly targeted in some poorer regions.
Recipient countries: defending cohesion and agriculture
On the other side stand the countries that receive far more from the EU than they contribute — largely the newer member states from Central and Eastern Europe, as well as parts of Southern Europe. For them, cohesion policy (funds aimed at reducing economic and social disparities in poorer regions) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are lifelines. Cohesion funds have poured hundreds of billions into infrastructure, jobs, and development in countries such as Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria. CAP, which has traditionally consumed around one-third of the EU budget, provides direct payments to farmers and supports rural areas – vital in France, Spain, and the East, where agriculture remains a larger economic sector.
These states argue that any real-terms squeeze on these programmes would widen regional gaps, threaten food security, and punish the very areas the EU claims to support. The Parliament’s rapporteurs echoed this view, explicitly rejecting any merger or dilution of dedicated funding for farmers and regions. Recent farmer protests across Europe have only amplified the political sensitivity: slashing CAP, they warn, could endanger rural livelihoods and EU strategic autonomy in food production.
The Commission’s original proposal had already hinted at some modernisation – more flexibility, performance criteria, and a shift toward competitiveness – which frugals welcomed but recipients largely opposed as a backdoor way to cut traditional transfers. The Parliament has now doubled down on protecting those core policies while layering on extra money for defence and new challenges, effectively telling both sides they can have their cake and eat it.
Broader context and what comes next
The clash is not new. Similar battles marked the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 budgets, with frugals extracting concessions and recipients fighting to preserve flows. This time, the stakes are higher: the EU faces new demands for joint defence spending amid geopolitical tensions, competitiveness against global rivals, and repayment of €149 billion in pandemic debt starting in 2028. The Parliament is also proposing additional “own resources” – EU-level taxes on digital services, crypto transactions, and online gambling – to ease the burden on national treasuries, a move likely to face resistance from frugal capitals and possibly external partners such as the United States.
Negotiations between Parliament, Council, and Commission are expected to drag on for months, possibly into 2027. The final deal requires unanimous approval by member states, giving the frugal bloc significant leverage even if the Parliament holds a strong negotiating mandate. Analysts warn that without compromise, delays could disrupt funding for farmers, regions, and new strategic priorities precisely when the EU needs stability. For now, the Parliament’s vote sends a clear signal: Europe’s lawmakers want an ambitious, expansive budget that funds both old promises and new realities. Whether the governments – and especially the frugal paymasters – are willing to foot the bill remains the central, and highly controversial, question.
Caption: A snapshot of the vote in plenary, 28 April 2026
Updated: April 28, 2026 – 15:23