On 16 July 2025, the European Commission (EC) published a communication on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the period 2028 to 2034. A couple of months earlier (on 7 May), the European Parliament (EP) adopted its position on the MFF, highlighting the growing number of crises that the EU’s limited resources have to deal with. Therefore, on the day the Commission presented its proposal, the Parliament criticised the proposed budget for its lack of ambition, as its size (measured in EU GNI at 2025 prices) is practically the same as the current one, once the Next Generation EU reimbursement has been deducted.
However, the points of disagreement between the two bodies were not limited to the difference between the total amount proposed by the EC and that demanded by the EP. One of the points of criticism of the EC was the distribution of the items and the allocation to social investments. As the structure of the next MFF stands, investments in social policies would amount to just over €110 billion of the total.
The Commission’s proposal also suggests applying the budget allocated to social policies through the new National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs), allocating 14% of the total of each national plan to measures that support education, employment and social objectives, leaving Member States complete flexibility in terms of the exact distribution of funds within their own plan.
In October 2025, four major political groups in the European Parliament sent a letter to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, demanding improvements to the NRPP proposal. In particular, they called for, among other things, the European dimension of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and cohesion policy to be guaranteed and a specific budget to be allocated to each of them.
Clearly, these two positions reflect completely different visions, not only of the budgetary architecture, but also of the European social model, its capacity for cohesion and the protection of vulnerable people, such as Roma, in a context marked by economic volatility, technological transition and current geopolitical pressures.
The divergence between Parliament and the Commission therefore lies in the volume of social investment and the governance of that investment. The Commission is committed to integration, convinced that social cohesion depends on the ability to implement policies in a more strategic, rapid and aligned manner across sectors. For its part, Parliament insists that social cohesion requires multi-level governance, democratic control and socially earmarked funds to ensure continuity and territorial equity.
Both positions recognise the social urgency of the moment, but disagree on the appropriate institutional mechanism to ensure results.
European Commission:
The position defended by the Commission is framed by the need to make the MFF more flexible in order to be able to respond quickly to the new political and social challenges that have overburdened the European budget (in addition to inflation resulting from the war in Ukraine):
- The architecture of the European budget is very complex, with 52 programmes and instruments that often finance similar activities.
- The administrative burden needs to be reduced, including complex and diverse reporting requirements.
- There is a shortfall in EU funding for competitiveness, particularly for innovative technologies, as highlighted in the Draghi report.
- The slow start to implementation in the current funding period has also led to a high level of outstanding commitments.
European Parliament:
The European Parliament warns of a risk of weakening social policies by integrating multiple strands (cohesion, inclusion, employment, migration, fight against poverty) into a single National Plan, which would lead to:
- A loss of specificity of programmes aimed at social inclusion.
- Less visibility and traceability of funds allocated to vulnerable groups.
- A clear reduction in democratic control and the participation of local authorities, social actors and regions.
- Fragmentation of rights or services, depending on the priorities established by each Member State in its National Plan.
- An indirect weakening of the European Pillar of Social Rights, as its objectives are absorbed by a broader instrument.
These differences in the views of the Parliament and the Commission show that the next MFF is not simply an exercise in financial programming: it is the structural decision that will define the Union’s ability to sustain its social project over the next decade.
2026 will be a key year for decision-making on the future MFF. On 18 May 2026, the European Parliament will approve its official position on the next MFF, which will serve as the basis for negotiations with the Commission over the coming months. In its position, the EP calls for a cohesion policy with separate resources and flatly rejects its dilution in the National Plans. It also demands a higher level of resources than that presented, representing 1.2% of total GDP without taking into account the payment of interest on Next Generation funds, and in which Cohesion Policy accounts for at least one third of the MFF. It argues that the same amount of money cannot cover investments in the new strategic objectives (defence or housing).
Negotiations will continue with the adoption by the Council of the EU, in June, of a negotiating framework that will incorporate specific figures. The agreement is expected to be finalised by the end of the year with the Council’s conclusions and the interim report from Parliament and the Commission.
EURoma assessment
At EURoma, we are concerned about the design of this budgetary framework, as we believe that the Commission’s current proposal dilutes the model of equality and social inclusion, since the ESF+ no longer has its own entity. There is also a clear risk of losing the progress made for the Roma population in previous programming periods, where investment in the Roma population has become increasingly important in recent regulations.
We believe that the next Multiannual Financial Framework must strengthen the European social model, based on solidarity, equality and social justice. To this end, it will be essential to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the European Pillar of Social Rights and the EU Roma Strategic Framework, so that commitments are translated into tangible and measurable results.
