In a rare show of unity across political groups, the European Parliament has pushed back hard against the European Commission’s proposed blueprint for post-2027 EU funding structure, demanding a complete rethink of its plans to merge budget lines and pass power into the hands of member states. Natasha Foote reports.
In a letter sent to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, dated 30 October 2025, leaders from the centre-right EPP, Socialists, Liberals and Greens/EFA rejected the Commission’s proposal for a ‘one national plan per Member State’ approach.
“As the current proposal […] does not take our core requests into consideration, it cannot constitute a basis for negotiations,” the letter sets out.
The proposal, which was presented back in July, aims at a profound shake-up of the EU’s budgetary power structures. At stake is nothing less than the future of Europe’s agricultural and rural policies — the backbone of rural development, farming livelihoods and territorial balance in the EU.
Brussels vs member states?
The Parliament argues that the Commission’s approach would hand unprecedented budgetary power to national capitals, undermining EU priorities and eroding a common approach.
“We are against a Union à la carte, with centralised national decisions overlooking EU priorities and undermining EU added value,” the signatories warn. This approach risks “fragmentation, de-solidarisation and the financing of 27 disparate national plans,” they argue.
One of the most forceful criticisms targets the bypassing of regional and local authorities. Parliament insists that Cohesion Policy cannot be designed from capital cities alone. “We need direct and continuous negotiations between regions and the Commission to be legally mandatory,” they said, calling for a stronger role of regions and local authorities.
The call echoes that of rural experts, who have been mobilising against the proposal since its presentation back in July.
A clear-cut CAP
The Parliament also makes clear it rejects merging agricultural and regional policy tools into a single “mega-instrument”. Signatories instead demand stand-alone, ring-fenced envelopes for agriculture, cohesion and other funds which were proposed to be lumped together in a single money pot.
“Pooling these policies together dilutes their distinct role,” the letter reads, stressing that “dedicated budgets per policy would ensure more predictability and certainty for beneficiaries and would be further enhanced with ring-fenced amounts for specific policy priorities.”
“Cohesion policy and CAP need a modern vision, based on innovation, competitiveness, sustainability and energy efficiency, with the view to deepen the single market, promote convergence and reduce inequality, in line with their core, Treaty-based, essence.”
Democratic deficit
Signatories also accused the Commission of building a system with a “democratic deficit”, echoing civil society concerns raised since the pandemic funds were rolled out.
“There is an inherent democratic deficit in the “cash-for-reforms” model, given the lack of oversight by the European Parliament – as budgetary and discharge authority – and by national or regional elected bodies,” the letter states.
As such, the Parliament must be given “full decision-making role in the so-called ‘political steering mechanism’ that is designed to steer the annual budgetary procedure, in a legally binding and clear way”.
Alongside this, they call for funding to have tighter links to objectives and more oversight, with a clear link to Rule of Law. They also signal zero tolerance for governments trying to reshuffle funds frozen due to rule-of-law breaches.
A political line in the sand
The Parliament is taking no prisoners here — unless the Commission returns with a proposal aligned with these demands, it is clear they will not play ball and budgetary talks will not move forward.
“We therefore look forward to seeing our key requests meaningfully reflected in an amended proposal of the European Commission, which would allow the negotiations with the European Parliament to move forward,” the letter signs off.
Meanwhile, the Parliament’s counterparts, the Council, are currently evaluating the Commission’s proposal and are set to put their own amendments forward in 2026. Ultimately though, as one of the two main players in this game, the Parliament has the power to reject the final budget version, expected to be finalised early 2027.
ARC2020 will continue monitoring developments — especially how this debate shapes the future of European farming, food systems and rural communities.
More
EU Budget: How Brussels’ New Plans Put Regions Out to Pasture
A Not So Common Agricultural Policy and A Mega MF(F)ing Fund – What’s Cooking in the New CAP?
The EU’s New Big Budget Bombshell – Here’s What We Know So Far
Fund the Future of Food & Farming: A United Call from Across Europe
Mercosur Is Set To Sail – With Sore Points for Sustainability, Will The Deal Sink Or Swim?
Pruning the EU’s Farming Policy: Have CAP’s Green Shoots Survived the Shears?
Passing the Pitchfork – Inside the EU’s new plan to get young farmers in our fields
