By Jorge Liboreiro
If there’s an issue on the European Union’s agenda that can single-handedly encapsulate all our prejudices, insecurities and manias is undoubtedly money.
Every seven years, the 27 leaders are required to get together and give their unanimous green light to the bloc’s common budget, effectively capping how much money Brussels will have for the foreseeable future. Reaching the deal is a torturous process that involves countless hours of behind-the-scenes negotiations, additions, subtractions, amendments, recriminations, slights and ultimatums.
The talks were expected to reach their boiling point in the second half of 2026 and culminate in a blood-on-the-walls summit in December. But the European Parliament, tired of being sidelined and belittled by member states, sought to turn the tables and flip the script.
As you’ve read in this newsletter, last month, the four centrist groups in the Parliament – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the liberals of Renew Europe and the Greens – joined forces in a letter addressed to Ursula von der Leyen that sharply criticised her ambitious proposal for a €2 trillion budget (2028-2034).
The forces decried the merger of agricultural and cohesion funds into a single pot of money, warning it would lead to fragmentation, undercut solidarity, distort the single market and excessively empower central authorities to the detriment of regional and local institutions. They also called for the Parliament to be given “full decision-making” powers in setting the budget priorities each year.
The letter move was remarkable for three key reasons. First, it was a rare display of unity by the four centrist groups, which are increasingly at odds. Second, it demanded an “amended proposal” as a precondition to continue the legislative process. And third, it was followed by a threat to vote on a resolution that would symbolically reject von der Leyen’s budget if the demands weren’t met.
All of a sudden, the Commission panicked. In the span of a few weeks, the executive went from “we won’t change our proposal” to “we’re willing to listen to co-legislators”. Then, von der Leyen caved in and sent a written reply pitching three targeted amendments: a new target to ensure a minimum of funding for rural areas, a stronger role for regional authorities in the implementation of national plans and expanded powers for the Parliament to set the budget’s annual priorities.
The tweaks were tailor-made for the dispute at hand and kept intact the philosophy that underpins the original proposal: fewer programmes, more strategic priorities, lesser pre-allocation and greater flexibility to respond to unexpected crises.
“We all know that the status quo is not an option,” von der Leyen told MEPs. “We cannot face this dangerous world with one hand tied behind our back.”
Though the concessions offered by von der Leyen are minor, they are a major victory for the Parliament, which, by means of trying, has inserted itself in a process that member states were adamant to keep strictly to themselves. Relations between MEPs and capitals have soured in recent months as both institutions adopt increasingly divergent positions on critical files, so the mere fact that Parliament managed to get its foot in the door is an achievement in and of itself.
Of course, there’s one catch in von der Leyen’s letter. Most of the issues addressed by lawmakers largely overlapped with the reservations that capitals had already voiced. This means that her overture to the Parliament can be tolerated by member states, even if diplomats were quick to stress the political process would remain firmly in their hands. In other words: forget a second try.
Von der Leyen, however, might not have an option if push comes to shove again. Her standing in the Parliament has been weakened by three motions of censure in half a year. While the Commission president survived comfortably, the motions laid bare the fractures in the coalition that backed her re-election last year and is supposed to stay united until 2029.
The challenges have only just begun. Three days after she staved off a rebellion, her own party, the EPP, teamed up with hard- and far-right forces to simplify sustainability measures for companies, confirming that today’s Parliament has not one but two majorities competing with each other.
| 
