Lion's share of tripled EU migration budget aimed at border management
Of the total €74 billion earmarked in the MFF 'to make Europe safer and more secure', €26 billion will be dedicated to migration management, including issues related to reception of asylum seekers and other non-border related issues.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's €2 trillion MFF proposal is designed to cover the seven-year period after 2028.
In the previous 2021-2027 budget, €25 billions in total were allocated to migration, with €14 billion aimed at border management and €11 billion to asylum reception and integration.
The ratio of budget allocated to border management has therefore increased from almost evenly balanced to two to one vis-a-vis migration reception systems.
In the next budget cycle EU border agency Frontex alone would bag €12 billion under the proposal, and is expected to undergo a sea change next year, with a sharp increase in staff and new rules of engagement at EU borders.
On top of these funds, other budget lines earmarked under the so-called 'Global Europe Instrument' could be used to deter migrants from arriving in Europe.
The external action of the EU includes macro financial assistance to third countries, which is often linked to their commitment to prevent migrants' departures from their shores.
Funds to third countries that fail to manage irregular migration may be suspended, except humanitarian aid, said an EU official.
Critics from civil society
The approach has been criticised by human rights groups which monitor the work of the Commission on migration.
'The home affairs funds proposal focuses on border management at the expense of asylum and inclusion,' the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) told Euronews in a statement.
"The proposals regarding border and migration policies again focus heavily on militarising borders, escalating the course the EU has been on for over a decade, despite its continued failure in all aspects,' Mark Akkerman, researcher at Stop Wapenhandel and the Transnational Institute told Euronews.
'Billions in proposed spending will end up primarily in the pockets of arms companies, while people on the move will continue to face death, violence, risks and human rights violations,' he added.
'What we know is that the proposal is to increase resources for funds that have sponsored violent border surveillance in the past, like the Border Monitoring and Visa Instrument or the Internal Security Fund. The same goes for Frontex, an agency that's been accused of complicity in human rights violations at the borders multiple times,' Chiara Catelli, Project Officer at PICUM, the umbrella organisation for undocumented migrants, told Euronews.
Euronews asked some clarification to the European Commission on the long term spending, without receiving a reply at the time of publication.
This reporting is based on MFF budget information available up to this point - no legal texts have been published yet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
EU and US spin conflicting versions of trade deal
The trade deal between the European Union and the United States is off to a rocky start. The preliminary agreement, announced at the end of a face-to-face meeting of Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump in Scotland, has prompted a massive wave of criticism over its heavily lopsided nature in favour of American interests. On Monday, the European Commission spent the day briefing journalists to defend the deal as an anchor of stability and predictability in troubled times, a pill that is hard to swallow but necessary to avoid a havoc-wreaking tariff war across the Atlantic. Then the story took a new twist when the White House published a fact sheet about the agreement with multiple claims that mismatched or downright contradicted the version of events presented by the Commission just hours earlier. On Tuesday, Brussels replied with its own statement, sowing further confusion. Euronews takes a closer look at the clash of narratives. Pharmaceuticals What the White House says: Pharmaceuticals will be subject to the across-the-board 15% tariff that will apply to the majority of EU-made products as of 1 August. What the Commission says: Pharmaceuticals will, for the time being, be spared from the 15% tariff and instead remain under the current 0% rate until the Trump administration completes its Section 232 investigation into the sector. "There will be no tariffs on pharmaceuticals this Friday," a senior official said. While the US' Section 232 investigation could lead to a tailor-made, painfully high tariff, as was the case for steel and aluminium, the Commission expects the 15% will act as the maximum ceiling, blocking the imposition of any additional duties on top. "I believe that this commitment will be honoured and respected in this case," said Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commissioner for Trade. Energy purchases What the White House says: The EU will "double down" on its purchases of American energy, buying $750 billions' worth by the end of Trump's second term. In practice, this will amount to $250 billion each year. What the Commission says: The Commission, which negotiated the deal on behalf of all 27 member states, lacks the competence to determine the amount, the type and the origin of the energy supplies acquired by governments and companies. Therefore it cannot legally bind the bloc to the goal of spending $750 billion on American energy. The announced number is an indication based on the needs the EU will face in the coming years to phase out the consumption of Russian fossil fuels, an arduous effort that has boosted the role played by American liquefied natural gas (LNG). "It's important to remember that the European Commission is not buying any of these commodities and neither is the US government selling any of this," a Commission spokesperson said. "These are all commercial decisions made by the companies: those companies that buy and those companies that sell." The spokesperson noted the annual figure of $250 billion would be all-encompassing, covering ordinary purchases of American fuel, which currently range from $92 to $100 billion, as well as technology and investments. Investment pledge What the White House says: The EU will invest $600 billion in the US by the end of Trump's second term. "This new investment is in addition to the over $100 billion (that) EU companies already invest in the United States every year," the fact sheet says. What the Commission says: As with the energy purchases, the Commission is unable to design and implement investments on behalf of the private sector. The $600 billion is another indication based on the executive's contacts with industry. "It's not something the EU, as a public authority, can guarantee – it's something based on the intention of private companies," a senior official said. The aggregated $600 billion figure might shrink once the impact of the EU-US trade deal, which is disadvantageous for the bloc, begins to take effect. Despite the uncertainty, the White House is portraying the energy and investment pledges as a fait accompli. Weaponry What the White House says: The EU "agreed to purchase significant amounts of US military equipment", the fact sheet says, without citing any financial figure. What the Commission says: Absolutely not. The Commission has resolutely denied making any pledge to ramp up purchases of American-made weaponry. This is a highly sensitive matter for Brussels, given that defence is a strictly national competence that member states zealously guard. While Ursula von der Leyen has promoted ambitious initiatives to boost defence spending, the final decision of how this money is spent – or if it is spent at all – rests exclusively in the hands of capitals. "Arms procurement is not a matter for the Commission," the senior official said. "I think this was more an expression of expectation on the part of President Trump that the increased defence expenditure (in Europe) would benefit US defence companies because of the quality of the US defence equipment, but it was not calculated in any way in the figures we talked about." Steel and aluminium What the White House says: The sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminium will remain "unchanged", meaning the EU will continue to pay the 50% rate imposed by the Trump administration as a result of the Section 232 investigation. "This new tariff regime will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue annually and help to close the longstanding trade imbalance between the United States and Europe by encouraging local sourcing, reshoring production and ensuring that foreign producers contribute their fair share to the American economy," the fact sheet says. What the Commission says: The EU insists the deal will establish a specific quota system to settle the long-standing dispute over steel and aluminium. Under the system, the volume of EU exports that fall within the quota will benefit from a lower tariff rate. Once the quota is exceeded, the 50% will apply, senior officials explained. Due to the embryonic state of the agreement, the Commission is still unable to provide technical details on how the quota will work in practice. Its press release simply says the system will be based on "historic levels" of steel and aluminium exports. The White House's fact sheet mentions a commitment to provide "meaningful quotas" for several products, but only in the context of US products bound for the EU market, not vice versa, as the Commission has stated. Digital and agricultural barriers What the White House says: As part of the new deal, the US and the EU will address "non-tariff barriers" in food and agricultural trade, "including streamlining requirements for sanitary certificates for US pork and dairy products". The two sides will also address "unjustified digital barriers", the White House adds, with commitments to maintain network usage fees and zero duties on electronic transmissions. What the Commission says: Yes, the EU is willing to streamline sanitary certificates, which are forms, and discuss network fees, but that's as far as it goes. The bloc will retain its "right to regulate autonomously" at all stages, said Olof Gill, the Commission's spokesperson for trade, in reply to the White House's claims. "We're not moving on our regulations. We're not moving on our rules. We're not moving on the system that we built up over many decades that our citizens trust," Gill said. "That will not form part of this agreement with the US." Throughout the negotiations that preceded the deal, US officials consistently denounced the bloc's regulatory framework, calling for the abolition of its digital rules, food safety standards and value-added tax (VAT) as top irritants.
France 24
2 hours ago
- France 24
European pharma industry still worried about tariffs
The agreement sets a 15 percent tariff on most EU goods imported into the United States, but Washington could still take steps that would see medicines face a higher levy. The EFPIA trade association for the European pharmaceutical industry said it was monitoring announcements on the details of the deal "as key implications for the pharmaceutical sector remain uncertain". An EU fact sheet on the trade deal said the 15 percent rate ceiling would also apply to any potential future tariffs on pharmaceuticals, including Section 232 tariffs meant to protect US national security. Most EU pharmaceuticals currently enter the United States without a tariff, and the EU said this would remain the case until the US decides on whether to impose additional tariffs based on Section 232. Earlier this month Trump threatened tariffs of up to 200 percent on pharmaceuticals in as soon as one year if foreign firms did not begin to manufacture more in the United States. In the spring, in the face of these risks, large European pharmaceutical groups including Roche, Novartis and Sanofi announced more than $200 billion of additional investments in the United States, the world's largest drug market. But US pharmaceutical firms have also set up shop in Ireland, attracted by its low corporate tax rate. The sector employs about 50,000 people and accounted for nearly half of Irish exports last year, reaching 100 billion euros ($116 billion). The EFPIA criticised tariffs as a policy instrument. "Tariffs on medicines are a blunt instrument that will disrupt supply chains, impact on investment in research and development, and ultimately harm patient access to medicines on both sides of the Atlantic," it said.
Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
Exclusive: Cross-party MEPs call for EU sanctions on Israel over Gaza
A group of 40 cross-party MEPs are pressing on the European Union to suspend its trade deal with Israel and impose sanctions on the Netanyahu-led government, as an UN-backed body warns of signs of famine and widespread starvation in the Gaza Strip. In a joint statement seen exclusively by Euronews, the lawmakers call on the EU to hold the Israeli government accountable for actions that 'blatantly breach the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law.' The statement also urges Hamas to immediately release Israeli hostages still held captive in Gaza after they were kidnapped from Israel during October 7 2023 attacks. 'Future generations will judge today's leaders on their response, or lack thereof, to the atrocities in Gaza. Failing to act now will be remembered as a moral stain on humanity,' the statement reads. 'The time for moral cowardice is over, and action must be swift.' The coalition of MEPs explicitly call for sanctions on the Israeli government, a move the EU has so far avoided despite allies including the United Kingdom and Norway moving to sanction two Israeli ministers considered extremist, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. On Tuesday, the Netherlands imposed travel bans on both ministers in response to the deepening crisis in Gaza. The 40 signatories also press on the Commission to suspend the EU's Association Agreement with Israel, which defines the trading and political relations between both sides, and which has often been touted as the best tool at the EU's disposal to pressure Israel into improving a spiralling humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. A previous review by the EU's diplomatic arm found indications Israel had breached the human rights obligations enshrined in its Association Agreement with the bloc, but the process failed to trigger any concrete reprisals beyond a discussion between the EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas and her Israeli counterpart, foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar. Those talks resulted in an 'agreement' by Israel to scale up the humanitarian assistance reaching Gaza. But concerns about the humanitarian situation on-the-ground have mounted since. On Monday, the European Commission tabled the partial suspension of Israel's access to the EU's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme in response to its actions in Gaza. But the signatories of the statement call for a much more stringent response, warning "mere words of condemnation are inadequate." They represent 14 of the EU's 27 countries and six different political groups, from The Left to the centre-right European People's Party (EPP). Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza has exposed deep political and national fault-lines in the European Union. But the deepening humanitarian crisis is prompting lawmakers from ideologically opposed groups to join forces in calling for more decisive EU action. 'MEPs from across the spectrum of pro-European, pro-democratic parties have united behind this statement,' MEP Evin Incir, who sits on the centre-left Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group, told Euronews, adding that more signatories were expected to support the statement in the coming hours. 'Our concerns are directed at both the European Commission and EU member states, who all need to be more decisive in their response to the unfolding humanitarian crisis,' she added. The statement comes as the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a global watchdog monitoring hunger with the backing of governments and the UN, said there is 'mounting evidence' that 'widespread starvation, malnutrition, and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths' in the besieged territory. Israeli government officials have either denied that there is famine in Gaza or deflected the blame. There have been multiple reports of armed gangs looting aid deliveries and selling the contents on the black market, which could be exacerbating the crisis.
