Ireland’s attempt to steer the EU’s next seven-year budget toward a deal has triggered a swift backlash across Brussels and several national capitals, with critics on all sides warning that Dublin’s opening offer either cuts too deep or misses the targets that should be protected.
The Irish presidency’s draft, unveiled on Saturday, proposes an 8% reduction to the European Commission’s original €1.72 trillion plan for the 2028-2034 period.
That would shrink the overall package by €141 billion.
Objections have come from governments seeking far larger savings as well as from institutions and political groups determined to shield — or expand — spending in key areas.
The so-called Frugal member states, or self-styled “Modernisers”, who had pressed for cuts of “several hundred billion” euro, reacted angrily, especially because the biggest reductions fall on competitiveness, innovation and defence rather than long-established pillars like farming and cohesion.
Minister of State for European Affairs Thomas Byrne defended the Government’s draft as a ‘basis for negotiation’
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz set the tone in a statement, saying: “The size of the new proposal is not a basis for agreement. The EU budget must be affordable for those who bear the brunt of financing it.”
Finnish prime minister Petteri Orpo echoed the concern, arguing the draft hits the wrong priorities: “Defence, research and new technologies are being hit disproportionately hard. Europe needs to strengthen itself in these areas. Savings need to be found in a balanced way across the entire budget.”
In Luxembourg this afternoon, the Minister of State for European Affairs Thomas Byrne said the pushback was “entirely predictable.”
He told RTÉ News: “The assignment we were given, the task we were given, was to find a basis for negotiation, not a basis for agreement. I think we found a basis for negotiation.”
The Government has said it wants member states to reach agreement on both the size and the shape of the budget before Ireland’s presidency ends in December.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government is one of several to have said the proposal is no basis for agreement
But several net contributors have already cast doubt on that timetable.
Dutch Finance Minister Eelco Heinen said: “The Netherlands cannot accept this proposal. At this rate, there will be no deal by the end of the year,”
Sweden’s Minister for EU Affairs Jessica Rosencrantz described the Irish draft as “unreasonable,” adding that “we are therefore nowhere near an agreement.”
From the opposite direction, the European Parliament’s main pro-European blocs accused Dublin of stripping too much from the Commission’s plan. The Irish draft is known as the Negotiation Box.
In a joint statement, leaders of the centre right European Peoples Party (EPP), the centre left S&D, the liberal Renew Europe and the Greens said they conveyed “our utmost dismay” at the presidency text.
“We would like to be clear from the outset: we reject the proposal put forward by the Irish Presidency, which cannot constitute a basis for Parliament’s consent on the next Multiannual Financial Framework [ie, the seven year EU budget],” it said.
In April, the Parliament called for a 10% increase in the size of the budget compared to the current cycle.
The European Commission expressed its dispeasure at the draft document
The European Commission on Monday joined the widening list of critics.
“We are definitely not happy seeing these cuts,” said commission spokesperson Balazs Ujvari.
“We have a certain number of collective objectives,” he told reporters, “a certain number of priorities which have been set for the coming years, and it is important that we have the means at our disposal to deliver on these critical priorities. It’s very important that we allocate the right level of resources to our ambitions.”
The seven year budget, or MFF, requires the unanimous consent of member states and the European Parliament.
Ireland’s proposal follows weeks of outreach by Dublin to other capitals, amid sharpening divisions between the Modernisers and the “Friends of Cohesion” — 17 member states that urged Ireland to protect cohesion spending, which benefits poorer regions, particularly in eastern Europe, Spain and Italy, alongside agriculture.
Under the planned redesign, the next MFF would be organised into four “headings” rather than the traditional seven, while granting member states more leeway over how funds are used.
Those four headings span traditional EU programmes (agriculture and cohesion), newer priorities (competitiveness, innovation and defence), international development and aid, and the EU’s administration costs.
The Irish Negotiation Box would cut competitiveness funding by 13% and global cooperation by 17%.
Agriculture and cohesion, by comparison, would take a 3% reduction.
There has been criticism of the Government’s perceived bias in favour of agriculture
One senior figure suspected Ireland’s long-standing defence of farm spending shaped the choices embedded in the draft.
It’s understood that part of the Commission’s frustration centres on the claim that the Irish plan would severely constrain the EU’s ability to respond quickly to shocks — the kind that have repeatedly disrupted the current 2021-27 budget cycle.
Examples cited include emergency outlays linked to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as responses to wildfires, floods, droughts, migration pressures and severe damage to the farming sector.
Officials say Dublin’s text would amount to a 55% reduction in the budget’s flexibility-response capacity, leaving the next MFF too rigid.
Minister Byrne disputed that assessment.
“We’ve actually put a lot of flexibility into the Negotiating Box,” he said. “All of the headings have increased flexibilities there that enable the European Union, or the member states, to react to different circumstances. I don’t accept that criticism.
“What we’ve been asked to do here is to bring together the views of 27 member states on the commission proposal. Member states have to agree unanimously, and then we have to go to the European Parliament.
“We try to bridge all of the different points of view to try to bring them closer together in order that we can get an agreement. Nobody’s going to get everything that they want, but we hope that there will be something there for every member state to be able to agree to this by the end of the year.”
Officials have also pointed to the proposed reductions for the European Competitiveness Fund — described as the signature innovation of the new budget architecture — which faces a 13% cut, or €42bn.
Because that pot is delivered through investments rather than grants, officials argue the reduction would significantly weaken its ability to leverage additional funding.
One source pointed to ‘a lack of ambition’ in the proposed budget
Officials say the Irish cut could translate into up to €250bn less potential investment for defence, security, space, decarbonisation, AI, quantum, biotech, research and innovation.
Senior sources say EU leaders routinely demand the bloc do more when crises erupt, yet the Irish draft would lower flexible spending margins across the board to 50%.
Another flashpoint is the pace — and ambition — of work on new revenue sources for the EU budget, known as New Own Resources.
The European Commission argues the EU needs to generate up to €60bn per year, beyond national contributions, both to reinforce the budget and to cover around €24bn annually in repayments for debt raised to fund the post-COVID recovery.
Several officials complained that while the presidency text keeps New Own Resources on the table, it contains little concrete development of those tools.
One source suggested Ireland’s traditional defence of national taxation prerogatives may have contributed to what they described as a lack of ambition.
Dublin has countered that some member states strongly oppose revenue streams that could otherwise flow into national exchequers.
At Saturday’s news conference presenting the Negotiation Box, Minister Thomas Byrne said the Irish proposal could raise €55bn per year.
The European Parliament is also critical of the document
However, a European Parliament analysis said the Irish draft “does not make tangible progress on new own resources” and noted it did not explore parliament-backed ideas such as a digital service levy on major tech companies, a levy on online gambling, and a tax on cryptocurrency profits.
Additional criticism has focused on whether the Irish draft weakens the connection between EU funding under the new National Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) and reforms agreed at EU level.
Balazs Ujvari, the Commission spokesperson, said: “We are equally concerned that the revised Negotiating Box weakens the link between national and regional plans and country-specific recommendations, limiting the EU budget’s ability to drive reforms. Investments and reforms must go hand in hand.”
Also in Luxembourg, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Helen McEntee said: “We’ve tried to get a balance here, and you could say the fact that everybody’s a little bit unhappy means that we’ve landed somewhere in the right place.
“We’ve really tried to take on board all of the different concerns. Obviously some member states wanted a higher cut, others wanted less of a cut, and the [European] Parliament itself wanted an increase.”
McEntee called the Irish draft “a good place” to begin substantive talks, saying securing agreement by December remained “a focus point for us.”
With the Negotiation Box now on the table, Ireland’s direct role in managing the seven-year budget process is set to taper off, as responsibility shifts to Antonio Costa, the President of the European Council, who chairs EU summits.
Costa will get his first opportunity to advance the talks when he leads a summit in Brussels on Thursday.
EU leaders are due to return to the budget again at the end of November, ahead of the Irish presidency’s concluding summit in mid-December.
