EU budget: Parliament revolts against Commission proposal
The level of information provided by Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin in a briefing to MEPs from the Parliament's Committee on Budgets (BUDG) on Wednesday was deemed unsatisfactory by most. 'Commission President's Ursula von der Leyen is giving a press conference and she is giving to the press more information than you to us,' lamented Belgian MEP Johan Van Overtveldt, the committee's chair.
Some of his colleagues underlined the lack of figures, official documents, and explanatory materials from the Commission to prepare for the discussion with the Commissioner.
Commissioner Serafin, who acknowledged the discontent, said that he had left the decision-making meeting of the Commission early to be present at the Parliament and to present the proposal there first, "in recognition of [Parliament's] role".
MEPs were also very critical of the content of the proposal, which amounts to almost €2 trillion, or 1.26% of the EU's gross national income.
'For sure, this is not a 'historic budget' as the European Commission is attempting to present it. It is at the same level as the budget of the EU in the previous seven years,' Siegfried Mureșan, one of the rapporteurs for the MFF in the Parliament, from the European People's Party (EPP), said during a press conference.
'The attempt of the Commission to convince us that this budget is a significant increase is misleading. The increase is coming only for the adjustment to the inflation rate and it is only coming because we have to pay back the Next Generation EU fund,' he said, referring to the extraordinary funding lines furnished to recover following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Like many of his colleagues, Mureșan also believes that key demands from the Parliament have been ignored. One of the most contentious points concerns the so-called 'National and Regional Partnership Plans', under which the EU funds will be disbursed. 'This proposal is an attempt to renationalise the EU,' he told Commissioner Serafin and repeated in the press conference.
This opposition to national plans was reiterated in a statement from the leaders of the Parliament's so-called centrist majority groups—EPP, Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe, and Greens/EFA. They believe that the national plans would give more power to the member states to deal directly with the Commission, bypassing the Parliament's role.
'The European Parliament will not accept any reduction of Parliamentary oversight and the legitimate democratic control and scrutiny over the EU spending,' read the statement.
Another problematic issue is the merging of cohesion and agricultural funds, which most MEPs would like to see funded under a separate budget line and legal base.
Better received was the proposal on 'own resources'—taxes imposed at the EU level that should generate €58.5 billion per year, according to the Commission. Several MEPs endorsed the idea of increasing revenues by imposing duties on tobacco products and taxing companies with a net annual turnover of at least €100 million.
The MFF requires the regulatory consent of the European Parliament in addition to the unanimous consent of the EU member states to be approved: a majority of MEPs must therefore approve the final text for it to enter into force.
At this stage, the Parliament may also refuse to enter into talks, the rapporteurs have threatened. MEPs could approve a resolution asking the Commission to withdraw its proposal and present a new basis for negotiations.
But this would be a last resort, as co-rapporteur Carla Tavares from the Socialists and Democrats told Euronews. 'We want to put pressure and work with the Commission in order to find a compromise acceptable to all.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
an hour ago
- LeMonde
Customs duties: The EU further abandons its Green Deal with pledge to buy US energy
The agreement unveiled on Sunday, July 27, between Donald Trump's United States and Ursula von der Leyen's European Commission goes beyond the matter of customs barriers – in this case, 15% on imports of European products, starting Friday, August 1. The Commission pledged that the member states of the European Union (EU) would significantly increase their energy supplies from the US over the next three years. The official pledge is to bring the total value of European purchases to $750 billion (€650 billion) over three years by sourcing American oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) or nuclear fuel – an average of $250 billion per year. Pending further details, this figure raises questions. According to the online news outlet Contexte, it could represent the sum of investments already planned by European companies. Legally, "the EU cannot compel companies" to make this or that purchase, emphasized Phuc-Vinh Nguyen, head of the energy center at Institut Jacques-Delors, a French think tank. In 2019, China had already promised Trump to increase its energy purchases, but ultimately did not reach the pledged levels.
Euronews
4 hours ago
- Euronews
Seven all-American products that are actually 'Made in Europe'
US President Donald Trump has said that his tariff regime, which effectively places a higher tax on imports, aims to put 'America first again, folks' and force companies to either move back or retain production inside the country. Specifically, in an address to a joint session of Congress in March of this year, he said, 'If you don't make your product in America under the Trump administration you will pay a tariff — and in some cases a rather large one.' On Inauguration Day in January, he drove the message home with a blunt post on X: 'Buy American and hire American." Yet a lot of the products Americans might have grown accustomed to — or even grown up with — and that have a strong brand identity in the US are currently made in Europe. This is particularly true for products that are produced by large multinational companies, who use the benefits of globalised markets — and in the EU's case, previously free trade with the US — to move production elsewhere. The tariff threat is forcing some of America's most familiar brands to choose between absorbing the tariff costs themselves and cutting into their own profits, passing them onto US consumers or uprooting sophisticated EU plants that took decades to build. For now, most are stockpiling products in the US and tweaking prices while considering contingency plans for partial reshoring rather than shutting down their EU production lines. Ahead of the tariffs going into force on Friday, we have compiled a list of all-American products that are entirely made in the EU and will be subject to the 15% levy that will come into force following the deal struck last weekend in Scotland between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. 1. John Deere 6R & 6M tractors Made in: Mannheim, Germany In 2009, country crooner and Trump supporter Jason Aldean wrote a number-one hit song called Big Green Tractor, dedicated to the widely recognisable green and yellow John Deere — a staple of the US farm belt. Trump is definitely aware that a big chunk of these agricultural workhorses are produced abroad since he threatened to slap the company with a 200% tariff during the election campaign in 2024 if it moved part of its production to Mexico. The plant in Mannheim is the biggest Deere plant outside the US and even offers tours — if you are so inclined. 2. Viagra Made in: Ringaskiddy, County Cork, Ireland Pfizer's plant in County Cork was built in 1969 and has produced Viagra there since 1998. It still churns out nearly the entire global supply of trademarked Viagra pills and generic sildenafil. Pharmaceuticals account for the overwhelming majority of exports from Ireland to the US, with some estimates claiming they encompass around 60%. In February, the export volume went up by 450% as companies stockpiled and front-loaded products in anticipation of tariffs. 3. Ray-Ban Wayfarers and Aviators Made in: Italy While Ray-Ban Aviators were the preferred brand of Trump's much-maligned predecessor Joe Biden, Franco-Italian sunglasses giant EssilorLuxottica is the global industry leader in sunglasses production, and about half of its products — including products sold through or by Sunglasses Hut, Oakley and Target Optical — are sold in the US. Ray-Bans were invented by Colonel John Macready of the US Army Air Corps to stop pilots' eyes from frying at high altitude. Would James Dean's trademark swagger make girls swoon if he did not peer at them from above the frames of his Wayfarers? Risky Business would be an entirely different movie if sock-sliding Tom Cruise was not donning black Wayfarers while doing it. And neither would Cruise's other iconic role in Top Gun, where he wore Aviators. 4. Gillette razor blades Made in: Łódź, Poland Procter & Gamble claims that their Łódź cluster is the largest razor factory in the world, shipping to more than 100 countries. The Polish facility does not produce exclusively for the US and exports to other countries as well, but the Procter & Gamble CEO said prices for US goods would increase as a result of the tariffs. Disposable razors were invented in Boston by King C Gillette and popularised when the US Army issued every soldier with a Gillette razor in 1917, cementing their image as a staple of every American home. 5. Botox Made in: Westport, County Mayo, Ireland The Irish Times claims the AbbVie campus in Westport produces the "world's entire supply" of Botox. Invented in Los Angeles and beloved by glamorous Hollywood elites, it has become a staple of those wanting to postpone ageing and is not bothered by the frozen forehead look. The US botox market is valued at around $4.8 million (€4.2m). AbbVie have announced a stateside investment to offset losses if tariffs stick. 6. Polaroid instant film Made in: Enschede, Netherlands The only Polaroid film factory in the world is found in the Netherlands. Polaroids were a cult Cold War-era product in the US, used by families across the country to take instant snapshots of birthday parties and barbecues, as well as by artists such as Andy Warhol. When the US company announced it was going to stop producing the film in 2008, enthusiasts stepped in and made sure a factory in the Netherlands would keep production going. While these days most people get the "Polaroid" effect via built-in filters on their smartphones, hobbyists, hipsters and Gen Z-ers have reinvigorated the market which was valued at $300 million (€262.8m) in 2024. 7. Nicorette gum Made in: Helsingborg, Sweden In 1996, the FDA switched Nicorette gum — a chewing product laced with nicotine — from a prescription product to an over-the-counter staple, which has since become a staple of US drugstore aisles. The product is familiar to anyone who saw their parents try to kick their smoking habit as it became increasingly uncool and impossible to do in American public spaces. These days, the company is promoting its Quikmist spray as a means to quit vaping. To be fair, the Nicorette gum was invented in Sweden, but that certainly does not fade its mass-market appeal in the US. Every pack of Nicorette still rolls off lines in Sweden but Haleon is scrambling to pilot a blister-pack in Georgia to protect its grip on the nicotine-gum aisle.
Euronews
4 hours ago
- Euronews
Denmark's migration reset sets stage for EU-wide rethink
When it comes to migration, Denmark can barely hide its sense of vindication. "What has been mainstream among our populations for quite many years is now mainstream for many of us politicians as well," Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said earlier this month, speaking at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. "Finally." Her minister for immigration, Kaare Dybvad, feels equally triumphant. "I remember when I started in this post three years ago, the Austrian minister was the only one who supported these notions," Dybvad told Euronews in an interview. "Now it seems there are a lot more countries that have rallied around the notion that we should get democratic control of the migrant flows." For years, Denmark was considered the European Union's black sheep of migration policy. In the aftermath of the 2015-2016 migration crisis, the country began adopting increasingly restrictive rules to deter arrivals and hinder access to legal safeguards, a decision powered by its opt-out clause from the EU asylum framework. In 2019, Denmark approved a "paradigm shift" law that made temporary protection for refugees the new norm. The focus turned to self-sufficiency to stimulate integration in the labour market and reduce welfare dependency. Permanent residence was still available, but subject to strict criteria on full-time, long-lasting employment. By limiting the duration of asylum, Danish authorities made it easier to check whether the grounds of protection were still applicable and, if not, whether deportation was feasible. Denmark became the first European nation to declare parts of Syria as "safe", alleging the situation on the ground had "improved significantly". At that time, the designation, which saw the residence permits of hundreds of Syrian refugees revoked, proved extremely controversial and made international headlines. A similar outcry occurred in 2021 when Denmark signed a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda. Under the deal, Denmark would transfer asylum seekers to a reception centre in the African nation to wait for the examination of their applications. It was the first time that an EU member state openly pursued an outsourcing strategy. The European Commission, which had harshly criticised a similar scheme between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, reserved its right to take legal action. "External processing of asylum applications raises fundamental questions about both access to asylum procedures but also effective access to protection in line with the requirements of international law," a Commission spokesperson said in 2022. A year later, Denmark ditched the plan – but retained the principle. Instead of pursuing outsourcing at a national level, the country would aim higher: the European dimension. From black sheep to shepherd The Danish bet on the European level did not immediately resonate. The bloc was then negotiating the New Pact of Migration and Asylum, a comprehensive reform aimed at establishing common, predictable rules for the reception and distribution of asylum seekers. The talks were bitter and intense, and laid bare the old-age divisions between the South and the North. At times, the Pact seemed doomed to fail. In the end, member states recognised the value of having collective legislation to deal with a cross-border challenge like irregular migration. The five interlinked laws under the Pact were adopted on 14 May 2024, with only Poland and Hungary voting against. The moment was hailed as a historic breakthrough. But for Copenhagen, it was not enough. Two days after the vote, Denmark published a letter co-signed by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania. In the document, the 15-strong group advocated, in no uncertain terms, the outsourcing of asylum procedures, including by setting up a "return hub mechanism" where "returnees could be transferred to while waiting their final removal". The letter made special mention of Italy's initiative to build centres in Albania to process asylum claims of migrants rescued in high waters. It was a show of force and a declaration of intent that Brussels could no longer ignore. The conversation quickly shifted from the Pact to so-called "innovative solutions". In October, the lobbying paid its greatest dividend when Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, endorsed the idea of building deportation centres on foreign soil, a clean break from the executive's traditional thinking. Soon after her re-election, the Commission presented a draft regulation that would enable member states to strike arrangements with nations outside the bloc to transfer rejected asylum seekers in return for financial incentives. By coincidence, the law is primed for negotiations just as Denmark assumes the six-month presidency of the EU Council. The country has underscored its intention to reach a political deal on the file before the end of the year. Another key priority is the review of the "safe third country" concept, which would facilitate the relocation of asylum seekers beyond European borders. "We want to move the migration agenda forward," Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark's foreign minister, said earlier this month in a briefing with journalists in Aarhus. "It's well known we have a rather tough policy towards illegal migration, and we have proven to be pretty successful," he added. Pushing the law As it happens, Copenhagen has more-than-decent chances of success: the 15-country group that backed the 2024 letter has grown over time and today represents a decisive majority. Germany joined shortly after its new federal chancellor, Friedrich Merz, came into office. Merz has praised Denmark's migration policy as "truly exemplary". The speed at which things are moving has alarmed humanitarian organisations, who warn that outsourcing will waste taxpayers' money and fuel human suffering. "Denmark's model of migration control is being advertised as the gold standard and worthy of imitation because it aims to deter asylum-seekers from coming," said Céline Mias, EU director at the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). "The current trend of European nations focusing on deterrence mechanisms and externalising asylum processes is not only ethically questionable, often violating the principle of non-refoulement, but also demonstrably ineffective in the long run." At any rate, outsourcing remains a largely abstract concept. Neither Denmark, its allies nor the European Commission have yet offered details on what these external facilities might look like in practice. There has been no financial estimation, no logistical blueprint and, crucially, no suggested destination. The Italian-Albanian protocol, which von der Leyen hailed as a pioneering model from which the bloc could draw lessons, has fallen well below the five-digit figure of asylum seekers originally announced. With a reported price tag of €74.2 million, the centres currently host a few hundred migrants under deportation order. Danish officials admit they have not yet conducted an assessment to flesh out the project of "return hubs", but insist any agreement with a non-EU country should be designed as a mutually beneficial partnership and comply with international law and fundamental rights, a high standard that might complicate the selection process. Given the divisive nature of outsourcing, the scheme is expected to be pursued by a "coalition of the willing" with the political and potentially financial support of Brussels. A progressive spin Denmark's approach to migration comes with an ideological twist. Instead of being spearheaded by a right-wing government, as is generally the case in Europe, the stringent policy is enthusiastically promoted by the Social Democrats. The party defends many of the ideas common in the European left, such as climate action, gender equality, LGBTQ rights and a strong welfare state. But on migration, it has chosen to deviate sharply from the progressive agenda and adopt a hard line that raises eyebrows among socialists and prompts cheers among conservatives. The taboo-breaking fusion has played in Frederiksen's favour. The prime minister is one of the three socialists who have managed to survive the recent right-wing shift and retain their seat in the European Council. The other two are Malta's Robert Abela, who supports outsourcing, and Spain's Pedro Sánchez, who opposes it. "We need to tackle the migratory phenomenon by thinking about the future generations and not the future elections," Sánchez said last year, arguing a welcoming approach was necessary to address Europe's demographic crisis and ensure economic prosperity. But Frederiksen and her ministers are convinced that their method is the only viable option for centre-left politicians to stay in power and fend off the advance of hard-right forces, which pose a direct threat to their progressive beliefs. Kaare Dybvad, Denmark's minister for immigration, believes other social democratic parties should reframe the hot-button issue by taking their cue from Copenhagen. "Migration is often a burden for the constituents. Working-class communities have taken the largest part of the task of integrating people into local communities and the labour market," Dybvad told Euronews. "And therefore, if you're a party that is representing low-skilled, low-paid people, then you should be quite restrictive around migration." Asked if he felt vindicated by Europe's change of heart, the minister said: "I'm just happy that we have a lot more discussions on these matters."
