If the proposal presented by the European Commission for the multiannual budget of the European Union (EU) – the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) – for the period 2028-2034, were to proceed as it is, the losses would be huge for Portugal.
But it is not just for the Portuguese people that there are reasons for concern. The concern is general and it is necessary to prevent it from becoming a bitter reality.
Let us focus on just three of the aspects of the proposal.
On the one hand, the proposal presented by the European Commission marginalizes and secondaryizes the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion and worsens asymmetries and inequalities.
With the creation of the National and Regional Partnership Plans (PNRP), an amalgam of funds is created mixing cohesion, agricultural policy, fisheries, border management, among others. This option seeks to disguise the cuts in funds allocated to some of these policies and harms economically and socially less developed countries.
On the other hand, the Commission wants to use the MFF to concentrate and centralize powers and further emphasize the mechanisms that allow the imposition of policies on Member States and the conditioning of their sovereignty.
The Commission intends for the disbursement of funds under the PNRP to be linked to the achievement of milestones and targets and the implementation of reforms determined by the options and guidelines imposed by the EU.
Whoever complies with what the European Commission determines can have access to funds, whoever does not comply does not.
Added to this is the intention to create new EU resources to finance the European budget. This chapter includes the creation of new European taxes or the reinforcement of the component that is diverted from the States to the EU of already existing taxes and fees. The same is to say more interference in the sovereignty of States and less capacity for them to decide based on their own development and the needs of their respective people.
In some cases, the Commission’s proposal completely subverts the nature of the EU budget, forcing less developed countries to make larger contributions to the budget than more developed countries through these new own resources. This would be the case of Portugal, for example, regarding tobacco and electrical and electronic products.
With all this, this would send the determination that the EU budget must compensate countries that suffer the negative impacts of integration, the single market, the single currency and common policies.
Finally, the Commission makes a distribution of budget cuts, increases and deviations that is very revealing of the EU’s options and guidelines.
Cuts around 11% to cohesion funds, including the European Social Fund+. In the funds associated with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Fisheries, the cut could be in the order of 10%, but there are studies that suggest it could reach 30% in the case of the CAP.
Funds from Horizon Europe (science), Erasmus+ (education) and part of LIFE (environment and climate action), among others, are diverted to create the so-called Competitiveness Fund aimed at benefiting large multinational companies.
The funds allocated to militarism are significantly increased, with the amounts foreseen in the current MFF for military mobility being multiplied by 10 (!!). In addition to this increase, funds from other funds and programs, particularly those merged into the PNRP, can also be diverted to investments in militarization.
Anyone who thinks this is a discussion far from our lives is wrong. It is our future and the future of our lives that is being discussed in that budget.
Member of the European Parliament
Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement