Socialists blast Brussels plan to tie EU budget to national reforms
Ahead of the next €1.2 trillion spending plan – the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) – the Commission wants tighter control over when EU cash is disbursed, proposing that payments be made only after countries implement competitiveness-boosting reforms.
After initially rejecting the idea, the largest parliamentary group, EPP, fell in line .
Now, the Socialists, the Parliament's second-largest group, say their help getting the budget through the hemicycle means letting go of the 'reform-for-cash' scheme.
'We will strongly oppose the possibility for national [budget] plans to be underpinned by a 'payment against reforms' rule,' runs a letter sent to Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday, seen by Euractiv, and signed by S&D chief Iratxe García Pérez and her lieutenants.
While the EPP could get the budget through Parliament by relying on a right-wing majority, the group's chief, Manfred Weber, told Euractiv that the budget would be adopted with the votes from the Socialists.
In their letter, the centre-left MEPs also stressed the need for a stand-alone social fund to fend off any attempt to repurpose the €142 billion European Social Fund for other priorities, such as defence.
'The urgency of the political situation does not allow useless political games,' the Socialists, who helped elect the current EU executive in June 2024, wrote.
(mm)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
5 hours ago
- Euractiv
The EU will not budge on deadline for generative AI rules
The Commission is under growing pressure to delay implementation of its landmark artificial intelligence law, the AI Act – but for generative AI models, also known as general-purpose AIs (GPAI), the legal deadline of 2 August is not expected to budge. The last weeks have seen several calls from EU countries and industry for the EU to "stop the clock" on the implementation of the AI Act – with the key complaint being that important guidelines, standards and compliance tools are not yet ready. Some of these appeals specifically target rules for GPAI models – meaning generative AI systems such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, or Mistral's LeChat – which are due to come into force soon on 2 August 2025. A group of some 1,000 lobbyists, academics, experts, and civil society representatives took part in drafting a Code of Practice for GPAIs, which is supposed to support compliance with the law. But the drafting process has taken longer than anticipated, with the group missing the original 2 May deadline. With less than a month to go before the GPAI rules kick in under the AI Act, the Code still needs to be adopted by the Commission – although Tech Commissioner Henna Virkkunen has confirmed it will be published before the 2 August deadline. In parallel, the AI Board a body comprising national representatives – has been discussing the possibility of a "grace period" for signatories to begin applying the Code, in light of the delays in finalising the document. Such a grace period would mean GPAI developers would not be expected to follow the code's specific provisions immediately. However, they would still be legally required to comply with the AI Act as of 2 August 2025. The AI Board is considering extending the deadline for applying the Code until the end of 2025, a Commission spokesperson told Euractiv . Any grace period would apply only to the voluntary Code of Practice and would not suspend the AI Act's GPAI rules themselves. "There is no stop the clock, there is no grace period, there is no pause," a Commission spokesperson said in a Friday press briefing. But it's worth noting that there is a year's compliance grace period baked into the Commission's draft guidelines on GPAI rules – which is why the AI Office, which oversees the AI Act, will not actually start enforcing the GPAI rules until 2 August 2026. For GPAI models already on the market before 2 August 2025, the rules will also only apply from 2 August 2027. Some lobbyists may be aiming for a broader delay in the AI Act's implementation. A Commission spokesperson told Euractiv that the rules on GPAI models will apply from 2 August. However, in the context of the upcoming digital simplification omnibus expected by year-end, they added that 'all options remain open for consideration at this stage.' (nl, aw)
Euractiv
5 hours ago
- Euractiv
Europe's economic suicide pact
For centuries Japan's samurai relied on a practice called seppuku – suicide by disembowelment – as a remedy for failure. Europe's virtue-signalling ritual has a more prosaic (if equally lethal) name: Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, also known as the European Climate Law. Under the law, which was passed in 2021, the EU agreed to achieve climate neutrality by 2055. With that goal looking increasingly shaky, the Commission proposed a 2040 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040. 'We took the time to think strategically about how we make this a success for Europe,' climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said on Wednesday as he presented the bill. Unless the commissioner considers accelerating Europe's deindustrialisation a 'success,' he could not be more mistaken. The Commission's attempt to mandate more drastic cuts to emissions at a time when the region's economy has come to a virtual standstill is nothing less than seppuku by another name. Fortunately, Europe's more sober capitals – Rome, Prague and Paris, among them – are pushing back on the Commission's 2040 plan. The big question is what path Germany's centre-right led coalition, which is under intense pressure from the country's Green lobby, will pursue. Germany, which accounts for about one quarter of the EU's output, has been stagnant for the better part of five years. In the broader eurozone, the picture isn't much better, with real growth near zero for more than two years, the weakest in decades. With the prospect of an even deeper slowdown amid a possible trade war with the U.S., there could hardly be a worse time to tighten the shackles on European industry. Few European countries have the fiscal space to cope with the burden of steeper cuts to emissions. Of the eurozone's 20 members, 11 are currently in violation of the bloc's deficit rules, led by Romania with an eye-popping 9.3% budget deficit. The government's attempts to rein in spending have already sparked unrest . While manufacturing in Europe has declined by about 4% since 2015, the drop has been particularly pronounced in the region's industrial core, Germany, where industrial production has contracted by nearly 10% as the pillars of the country's economy – chemicals and autos – have begun to crack. The crisis in Germany should serve as a warning to the rest of the bloc. Like the Commission, Germany's political establishment argued for years that its ambitious climate policy (known in Germany as the Energiewende, or energy transformation) would serve as a model for the rest of the world. Instead, Germany – which has seen heavy industry turn away from the country due in part to high energy costs – serves as an example of a failed climate policy. Though German emissions have fallen considerably, that 'progress' has resulted in the erosion of its industrial base. No one is denying the climate crisis. Yet a go-it-alone strategy won't save the planet. It will only destroy what remains of the European economy and the unprecedented prosperity the continent has enjoyed in recent decades. The samurai also had a word for that: kaishaku, the beheading. May Europe's cooler heads prevail.
Euractiv
a day ago
- Euractiv
Five things to know about the EU's next farm fund
The European Commission's planned revamp of the EU's long-term budget is stirring uncertainty across many sectors, but especially among farmers, who remain the biggest recipients of EU money. Here's what we know so far about how the budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), will influence the next Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with an announcement expected on 16 July. The two-pillar structure Early drafts of the EU budget reform explored merging CAP funds into a flexible "Single National Plan" alongside cohesion instruments. But EU Agriculture Commissioner Hansen said on Wednesday that the Commission's intention to maintain income support for farmers – the policy's first pillar – remains very clear. Farmers' main concern has been that rural development money – the second pillar – would be forced to compete with cohesion funds. According to Jan Olbrycht, a special adviser to EU Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin, that risk now appears off the table. 'We have the CAP, which probably will be separated with the two pillars… The plot that the rural development can go to cohesion policy is over, is finished,' he said at the Committee of the Regions last week. The real uncertainty now is how much money will go into the second pillar and whether it will be ring-fenced or remain vulnerable to reallocation. Hansen has repeatedly defended preserving the current two-pillar structure. At a meeting with EU agriculture ministers in Warsaw and again this week at the Committee of the Regions, he made it clear that scrapping the two-pillar setup would be a mistake. 'It would be unwise to throw overboard this toolbox,' he said. More power to the capitals Since the last CAP reform, national governments have taken on a bigger role in shaping farm policy through their own strategic plans – a role that's expected to grow after 2027. Speaking at an event this week, Gijs Schilthuis, director for sustainability at the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture (DG AGRI), said the Commission wanted to give member states more flexibility to tailor green rules and incentives to local realities. The Commission's May simplification package already proposed giving national governments more room to revise their CAP national plans. Dedicated but decimated? While the overall MFF remains under pressure, the CAP is still expected to receive a 'dedicated budget,' Hansen told Euractiv on Wednesday. According to Olbrycht , the CAP budget will "for sure not be bigger," and farming policy is unlikely to be spared from cuts. Sources consulted by Euractiv suggest that CAP funding could fall by 15-20%, depending on how the budget reallocation is handled. With limited options – raising national contributions, creating new EU own resources, or cutting programmes – some pressure on agricultural funding seems inevitable. Timing There's also uncertainty around timing. The current CAP is implemented through three regulations: the national strategic plans, the Common Market Organisation (CMO), and the horizontal regulation. Last year, Hansen proposed targeted changes to the CMO to boost farmers' bargaining power in the food chain. Work on the file is still ongoing. Meanwhile, the recently proposed CAP simplification package includes amendments to both the national strategic plans and the horizontal regulation – and these, too, are still being discussed. It remains unclear how the Commission intends to launch a broader CAP reform while parts of the existing legislation are being negotiated. According to multiple sources, the 16 July MFF package will likely include a regulation on the single fund, with a CAP chapter outlining basic new elements in the national strategic plans and horizontal regulation. CMO amendments could follow later in autumn. In that case, a full-blown overhaul of the CAP looks increasingly unlikely. From sticks to carrots With the Green Deal and Farm to Fork effectively buried, environmental conditions are no longer expected to be central to the post-2027 CAP. Many of the eco-requirements once placed on farmers were scaled back or scrapped in 2024 in an effort to reduce red tape. Hansen has made no secret of the shift. The next CAP, he said, will focus on incentives rather than penalties – a pivot from stick to carrot. It's not a revolution, he said at the Committee of the Regions, but an "evolution" – likely building on the May simplification package. In his view, CAP funds should target 'those most in need' – namely young, new, and small farmers. But shifting more money toward these groups would require cuts elsewhere, he added. The solution, he argues, would be to cap payments to the largest farms and introduce stronger 'degressivity' – where payouts decrease as the amount of farm aid increases. His proposal is already dividing the EU's main farming groups. Jeremias Lin contributed reporting. (adm, de)
