The Hungarian election therefore matters for the EU budget in at least 3 ways:
• it may reduce veto politics in the Council
• it is becoming a field test for EU conditionality
• it may pave the way for conditionality to become a central governing principle of the next #MFF
8/8
The Commission wants to embed conditionality more firmly in the new National and Regional Partnership Plans.
That will not please everyone - not least some of Orbán’s friends in Bratislava and Prague. But a post-Orbán Hungary would remove one of the most predictable and forceful opponents.
7/8
(3) THE NEXT MFF:
Without Orbán at the table, stronger conditionality rules in the next #MFF suddenly look much more likely.
6/8
This makes Hungary a test case for EU conditionality.
Can conditionality work as an incentive for reform? Can the EU reward change without releasing funds so quickly that it undermines the credibility of its own mechanisms?
On Friday, the Commission and Tisza will start negotiating.
5/8
(2) CONDITIONALITY: If the new Hungarian government wants to improve economic conditions quickly, it will need money - and fast. That puts the spotlight on the large volume of EU funds currently frozen over rule-of-law concerns. And time matters: some of these funds expire in August. 4/8
A political shift in Budapest could therefore not only help Ukraine right now but reduce one of the biggest risks regularly hanging over Council negotiations: blockage on politically critical budget decisions.
3/8
(1) BUDGET BLOCKAGES:
Péter Magyar has signalled openness to ending Hungary’s opposition to a €90 billion loan for Ukraine.
Why does this matter for the #MFF? Because Orbán could hold up the package only because it is tied to the EU’s long-term budget framework, where unanimity is required.
2/8
All eyes are currently on Hungary - not only because of Tisza’s 137 seats in parliament or viral dance moves of the health minister-to-be, but also because the change in government will have major implications for the EU.
Here are 3 ways the election results matter for the next EU budget #MFF
1/8
Key points for the negotiations:
How high should the ODA target be & how large the non-programmable components? Who gets to decide on flexibility? And how can meaningful reporting and evaluation be ensured?
The red thread, again, is how to balance flexibility with predictability and control.
9/10
Governance: The proposal shifts more decisions out of the basic act into the programming phase. That, once again, means more flexibility.
It also means power for the COM and Council – and less for the EP.
A possible fix: give Parliament a stronger role through the annual budget procedure.
8/10
Negative conditionality is a particularly sensitive case in point. The logic is simple: if a country does not take back its nationals, the EU could cut funding.
A major lever for the EU – and a serious risk for recipients that depend on EU support for human development or humanitarian aid.
7/10
Objectives: The COM wants a stronger focus on the “external dimension of internal policies.”
In plain English? Think migration and competitiveness.
Both may become more central – though the large ODA quota should keep the biggest share tied to more classic development cooperation.
6/10
Internal structure: Five geographic pillars are meant to provide predictability for partner regions.
At the same time, large non-programmable components and a 7% cushion build in flexibility.
Most thematic spending targets go – only a climate quota and 90% ODA target remain.
5/10
Size: While many parts of the budget face cuts, external action would actually grow. The GEI would amount to more than €200bn over 7 years and around 10% of the total MFF.
Even if this is likely to be cut in negotiations, the signal is clear: external action remains a core budget priority.
4/10
Structure: The COM wants to unite the main external action programmes under a single roof: the Global Europe Instrument (GEI). This includes humanitarian aid, pre-accession aid, support for the Western Balkans, and more.
Fewer separate programmes means more leeway to shift funds around.
3/10
At heart, the logic is familiar. The proposed Global Europe Instrument follows the same big design principles as the wider MFF: #simplification, #focus, #flexibility.
In other words: fewer boxes, stronger alignment with internal priorities, and more room to move when the next crisis hits.
2/10
When it comes to the EU’s next #MFF, its external action heading, #GlobalEurope, has received far less attention than the others.
Yet at a time when traditional development heavyweights are pulling back, the EU’s role in external action matters more than ever.
So what’s in the COM proposal?
1/10
For anyone seeking to better understand these fault lines, the MFF mechanics, or the choreography of negotiations - we got you covered.
Here’s the full guide: bst-europe.eu/investment-b...
9/9
Revenues: who foots the bill?
By default, a bigger EU budget means higher national contributions based on GNI. New own resources can change how the burden is distributed, but they do not magically make the bill disappear.
Rebates work much the same way.
8/9
Conditionality: no money without values?
Beyond existing conditionality rules, the Commission wants to be able to block NRPP funding for States that violate rule-of-law or human rights conditions. After a year, countries may even lose allocations altogether.
Can you guess who’s not a fan?
7/9
With greater flexibility comes an obvious question: Who decides how the money is spent?
In both the NRPPs and the ECF, the Commission hopes to gain more room to steer spending priorities. Member States, however, want more control. So does Parliament.
6/9
Structure & governance: how flexible is the budget — and who calls the shots?
Money is scarce, so COM is trying a different answer: make the budget more efficient, flexible, simpler.
The proposal cuts the structure down to 4 headings, built around two flagship funds: the NRPPs and the ECF.
5/9
This time, though, there is a twist.
As agriculture and cohesion funds are bundled together in the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs), reshuffling may increasingly happen within the pot, rather than in competition with other priorities.
4/9
Priorities: who gets what?
“Show me your budget and I’ll tell you what you value.” Today, roughly two thirds of the EU budget go to CAP and cohesion.
COM wants to shift the balance towards competitiveness and security – but negotiations usually drift back toward pre-allocated funds.
3/9
Size: how big is the pie?
COM wants a bigger MFF: 1.26% of GNI, up from 1.12%. Sounds like a lot – until you remember that 0.11% will be eaten up by servicing NGEU debt.
And the frugals have made clear that even this increase won’t happen under their watch. So further cuts are likely.
2/9
Tomorrow, EU leaders gather in Brussels for another #EUCO summit - and the EU’s next seven-year budget is back on the table.
@lucasguttenberg.bsky.social and I wrote a guide to the #MFF. Here are five battlegrounds in the negotiations that will shape EU action for years to come.
1/9
Priorities: who gets what?
“Show me your budget and I’ll tell you what you value.” Today, roughly two thirds of the EU budget go to CAP and cohesion.
COM wants to shift the balance towards competitiveness and security – but negotiations usually drift back toward pre-allocated funds.
3/9
Size: how big is the pie?
COM wants a bigger MFF: 1.26% of GNI, up from 1.12%. Sounds like a lot – until you remember that 0.11% will be eaten up by servicing NGEU debt.
And the frugals have made clear that even this increase won’t happen under their watch. Further cuts are likely.
2/9
Ahead of tomorrow's #COMPET, here’s the ECF debate in a nutshell. @lucas-res-car.bsky.social and I share 7 recommendations for a fund that delivers: strategically focused, flexible, and well-governed.
