Latest news with #EU-level
Euractiv
2 days ago
- Business
- Euractiv
Tobacco tax in EU budget: What if Europe goes smoke-free?
The Commission wants tobacco taxes to fund a fifth of EU-level sources of income, but the proposal casts doubts on the bloc's goal of a smoke-free generation by 2040. The majority of the proposed €2 trillion budget still comes from national contributions, but a growing share is expected to come from new EU-wide revenue streams, known as 'own resources'. One of the biggest proposed sources: tobacco. Tobacco taxation will provide €11.2 billion annually – close to 20% of the EU's projected €58.3 billion in annual own resources each year. To put this into perspective, the first figure represents the annual amount collected by Italy alone in 2023. Over the seven-year cycle, that adds up to €78.4 billion, enough to fund a substantial portion of the bloc's planned defence spending. How it works Under the Commission's proposal, the EU would collect a flat 15% of each EU country's tobacco tax revenue and channel it directly into the bloc's budget. Tobacco tax rates vary widely across the EU. France currently has the highest tobacco taxes, while Bulgaria maintains the lowest, meaning the amount each country contributes under the plan would differ significantly. The levy would be collected regardless of how high or low national tobacco tax rates are. Importantly, the 15% levy, called the Tobacco Excise Duty Own Resource, or TEDOR, is not linked to the ongoing revision of the Tobacco Taxation Directive (TED), which the Commission proposed on Thursday and will soon be negotiated separately. The TED is a proposal to significantly raise tobacco tax rates across the EU. It suggests a 139% increase on cigarettes, a 258% hike on rolling tobacco, and – for the first time – high taxes on new products such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches. Previously, Commission sources in Brussels had floated using additional revenues of the revised TED to boost the EU budget. But that plan has now been dropped, with the proposal introducing TEDOR as a standalone tobacco-based own resource. Still, if the revised TED is adopted, it would indirectly boost even more the EU's income. So while the 15% rate stays the same, the EU budget grows along with national tax revenues. Practically, under the current TED or its revised version, member states will still be required to contribute 15% of their total tobacco tax revenues. This applies even to countries like France, which already imposes tobacco taxes above the current EU average, meaning new tax hikes as part of the TED revision would not affect its current levels. Dirty past One major challenge in collecting the 15% tax will be addressing the growth of black markets. Brussels, echoing the World Health Organisation, rejects claims that higher taxes lead to more illicit trade. Instead, EU officials argue that it is the lack of tax convergence across the bloc that fuels the illicit tobacco trade. Still, in a nod to this risk, the Commission has proposed a lower tax rate for water-pipe tobacco (shisha), where black market activity has grown in many EU countries, particularly Germany. Europol's 2025 organised crime threat assessment, however, states that countries with high excise and VAT rates are more vulnerable to the illicit sale of excise goods. What if everyone quits smoking? The claim that higher tobacco taxation would lead to a surge in the black market is one often cited by the tobacco industry. But the credibility of the argument is limited. Anti-tobacco groups see this argument as an attempt to undermine public health efforts. And it goes back to the industry's track record. In the 1980s, tobacco companies marketed filtered and 'light' cigarettes as 'harm-reduced' – a claim now widely debunked. Health organisations say the same mistake is being repeated today, with the industry promoting e-cigarettes and other alternatives as 'less harmful'. The Association of European Cancer Leagues welcomed the Commission's proposed tax hike, describing it as a step toward creating a tobacco-free generation. Still, it raises a practical question: what happens if higher taxes succeed and people stop smoking altogether? Would that blow a hole in the EU's budget? The Commission says no. It argues that the projected €11.2 billion in annual revenues already account for a decline in tobacco consumption over time. Moreover, the EU estimates that EU countries would save an additional €6 billion annually in tobacco-related healthcare costs. (mm)
Euronews
4 days ago
- Business
- Euronews
5 key ideas behind the EU Commission's new farming rulebook
What the European Commission is set to unveil today marks only the first stage of a sweeping transformation that will redefine the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) at its core. In many ways, the upcoming changes are the culmination of reforms initiated in response to farmers' protests, focused on simplification and reducing conditionality. Now, these efforts are being pushed to their logical extreme. Yet, EU Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen faces a challenging road ahead, as the reforms are expected to be seen as drastic. At the heart of the shift is an unprecedented simplification: the CAP will be absorbed into a single fund—alongside previously distinct funding mechanisms like Cohesion Policy or the EU's fisheries subsidies—under a unified set of delivery rules for disbursing funds. One of the most symbolic changes is the abolition of the long-standing CAP structure built around two pillars, a structure in place since the 1999 reform. For CAP 'traditionalists', this is a major blow. Despite the clear rationale behind this overhaul—simplify the EU's farming rulebook—the new architecture of EU agricultural subsidies will be among the most complex elements of the upcoming EU budget. Here are five key ideas underpinning the reform: 1. Evolution toward revolution Since taking office, Commissioner Hansen has repeatedly pointed out that the next CAP would be an "evolution, not a revolution". But the reality seems to contradict his rhetoric. The new structure—and especially the shift to a single fund and removal of strong conditionality—has left many in the sector surprised, given Hansen's previously moderate stance, which enjoyed support from major stakeholders. In truth, it's a blend of both. The reform is indeed an evolution, building on recent simplification measures introduced after last year's farmer protests. Even the new delivery model, for instance, closely mirrors the current system agreed in 2021 based on 27 national strategic plans. However, these 'evolutionary' elements have now crystallised into a full-scale revolution: a single fund, a single budget heading, and minimal EU-level conditionality. 2. The 'Great Merger' is gentler on agriculture Another long-feared development has come to pass: the merger of regional funds and agricultural subsidies. Both CAP and Cohesion Policy, which account for two-thirds of the EU budget, will now be folded into a broader Single Fund. For the agricultural sector, the impact is softened. A ring-fencing mechanism ensures that a minimum share of the fund remains earmarked for agriculture, protecting it from budgetary flexibility that will affect other areas like cohesion policy more significantly. Despite agriculture receiving special consideration, the von der Leyen Commission's push for radical simplification of the program has proven unstoppable. 3. Rural development is still there (but no longer as a pillar) Since 2000, the CAP has operated under a two-pillar system, separating direct payments (the so-called first pillar) from rural development projects (also known as the second pillar), with the latter funded through multi-annual, co-financed programs. The new EU budget proposal would eliminate the CAP's 'second pillar'—but this doesn't mean rural development will disappear completely. Under the new CAP architecture, rural development actions such as support for small farmers or agri-environmental measures will continue, but no longer as part of a distinct 'pillar' with its distinctive policy objectives. Critical elements such as the terminology, structural division, and foundational aspect are gone, though the substance of rural development (including its co-financed feature) remains. 4. Losing the 'C' in CAP The risk of renationalisation—where the "Common" part in the Common Agricultural Policy begins to fade—has been growing since the previous CAP reform proposed by the then agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan and agreed on by lawmakers in 2021. That risk is now a reality. Post-2028, CAP implementation will lean heavily on bilateral negotiations between the European Commission and individual member states. Other influential actors, particularly local authorities but also the European Parliament, will have little say. With member states gaining significant autonomy over how funds are spent, the CAP is becoming increasingly national in character, which could undermine its 'common' objectives. 5. Familiar foundations with a few new twists Some foundational CAP elements will remain intact. Area-based income support and coupled income support—both central features of direct payments—will still be in place (with few tweaks). The crisis reserve, introduced in the last reform to address market shocks or disasters, also survives. But there are new features too. Notably, all member states will be required to establish farm relief services. These will provide support when farmers are unable to work due to illness, childbirth, or family care responsibilities, with co-financing from national governments.
Euractiv
6 days ago
- Business
- Euractiv
Money talks: What the EU-27 want from the next budget
The European Commission is set to present its big pitch for the EU's 2028–2034 budget on Wednesday, promising to drastically 'simplify' and completely rethink how the bloc spends money. The current €1.2 trillion amount is locked in for seven years, divided into 16 different clusters and over 50 budget lines. Roughly a third goes to farmers via the Common Agricultural Policy, another to regional development in Cohesion funds, and the rest to research, foreign policy, industry, and administration. But any overhaul is not up to Brussels alone. Every spending line in the so-called 'multi-year financial framework' (MFF) requires unanimous sign-off from both the Parliament and national capitals. Euractiv asked all 27 governments and combed through position papers to get their views on five crunch questions: Size: Should the budget be increased? Own resources: Should new EU-level income sources, like a carbon tax or joint debt, be introduced? National envelopes: Should the funds reserved for farmers (CAP, two parts) and lagging regions (cohesion, four parts) merge into national cash pots? Reform-for-cash: Should EU countries or regions be forced to make EU-friendly reforms to access EU funds? CAP/Cohesion cuts? Should CAP and cohesion funds be reduced? Five fights that will shape the EU's next €1.2 trillion budget There is a broad consensus that the EU needs a more agile budget but the bloc is a heavy machine – and always at risk of taking the path of least friction. In a nutshell: Thirteen countries, including France, support a bigger budget. Seven countries, including Germany, oppose an increase. Twelve countries, including France and Germany, support introducing 'new own' resources. Six countries are sceptical. Nineteen countries, including France and Germany, reject an outright merger of cohesion and CAP. But they may still favour a move in that direction, as long as their favourite programmes survive in some shape or form. countries, including France and Germany, reject an outright merger of cohesion and CAP. But they may still favour a move in that direction, as long as their favourite programmes survive in some shape or form. Thirteen countries, including Germany and France, are in favour of increased cash-for-reforms in the next budget. Nine are against. countries, including Germany and France, are in favour of increased cash-for-reforms in the next budget. Nine are against. Fifteen countries reject cuts to cohesion and CAP. The budget needs to be approved unanimously. Austria The government's position has not yet been finalised, officials told Euractiv. Belgium Bigger budget: Lean no. 'EU-level spending should remain focused on areas where it clearly delivers added value,' Deputy Prime Minister Van Peteghem told Euractiv in a statement. Own resources: Lean no. ' Belgium has not yet adopted fixed positions' but expects EU institutions to 'pursue greater efficiency and fiscal discipline in budget execution.' National envelopes: No. 'Belgium believes CAP should remain a separate instrument,' with its own internal distribution key. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. 'Belgium supports a performance-based approach' if it doesn't increase administrative burdens and respects the regional administration architecture of member countries. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No position. Bulgaria Bigger budget: Yes. The next MFF should 'at least' equal the current one and the EU's €650 billion Covid recovery fund together (RFF), reads a position non-paper seen by Euractiv. Own resources: Lean yes. 'We remain open to introducing genuine new own resources,' the paper reads. National envelopes: No. CAP should have a dedicated budget and retain its two-pillar structure, but Bulgaria supports more flexibility between the two pillars. Reform-for-cash: No. The Cohesion Fund should be preserved in its current form, with funding not tied to reform commitments. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Both areas are important. Croatia Bigger budget: Yes. "Croatia advocates an ambitious and robust budget," the government told Euractiv. Own resources: No position. National envelopes and reform-for-cash: Lean no. Greece is among the 14 countries that rallied against making regional funding conditional on national reforms in early July. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Zagreb wants a budget that "ensures a strong cohesion and CAP policy." Cyprus Cyprus did not respond to Euractiv's request in time for publication. Czechia Bigger budget: Lean yes. Czechia 'is ready to discuss a limited increase of the long-term EU budget,' the government told Euractiv. New own resources: Lean no. ' Czechia is in general reserved towards the introduction of new own resources.' National envelopes: No. 'We strongly support maintaining a separate CAP fund.' Czechia is 'cautious towards the possible in-depth reforms' for cohesion. Reform-for-cash: Lean no. Czechia is 'cautious' about greater focus on reforms. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. Cohesion is described as a crucial investment tool. No position given on CAP. Denmark Bigger budget: Lean yes. Despite being traditionally frugal, Denmark is open to a bigger budget. New own resources: Lean yes. 'You're not going hear us say... that we exclude sources of financing such as common debt from the beginning,' Copenhagen's ambassador to the EU said. All other questions: No position. Denmark does not want to share any position, citing its role in leading Council budget negotiations during its presidency, officials told Euractiv. Estonia Bigger budget: Yes. Estonia supports a larger EU budget and is ready to contribute more, along with other EU countries, reads a position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. ' New sources of revenue could be considered if they offer added value' and don't disproportionally burden poorer countries, reads the paper. National envelopes: Lean yes. Estonia favours streamlining funds and 'avoiding overlaps', but prefers adapting existing instruments to creating new ones. Reform-for-cash: Yes. Cohesion 'must continue to support the implementation of structural reforms' and should be aligned with country-specific recommendations. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. New priorities 'cannot be carried out at the expense of a significant reduction in existing areas.' Finland Bigger budget: No. 'The future MFF must be kept at a reasonable level,' reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. The proposals to divert funds from carbon levies (CBAM and ETS 2) are promising, Finland says. National envelopes: Lean yes. ' Finland is open to different models for reforming the future CAP' but insists that farmers' income support must remain a coherent whole. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Finland is 'open to a performance-based approach' but it should not be modelled after the EU's Covid recovery loan. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Yes. 'Cohesion funding should be decreased' and national co-financing of direct payments to farmers can be explored. France Bigger budget: Yes. Macron previously floated the idea of doubling the budget, and a French position paper from March reads that 'it is essential to invest in European priorities by scaling up.' New own resources: Yes. 'The introduction of new own resources is a sine qua non condition for an agreement,' reads the paper. National envelopes: Lean no. France is open to merging cohesion funds, but CAP should have a dedicated budget and 'maintain the two pillars.' Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Strengthening the performance-based approach with a role for national plans is a 'potentially interesting avenue.' CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. The EU needs a CAP with the 'ambition and resources commensurate with the stakes involved.' Germany Bigger budget: No. There is "no basis for increasing the volume of the MFF in relation to economic strength,' reads a German position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. Germany will 'constructively examine' proposals for new EU income sources. National envelopes: No. CAP and Cohesion should remain distinct policy areas, with rural development kept as an 'integral' element of CAP. Reform-for-cash: Yes. Cohesion should 'provide stronger incentives for national reform measures.' CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. CAP should have an 'appropriate budget' to meet high demands. Cohesion funds should be adjusted to be 'more suitable' for future needs. Greece Bigger budget: No position. New own resources: No position. National envelopes and reform-for-cash: Lean no. Greece is among the 14 countries that rallied against making regional funding conditional on national reforms in early July. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. CAP and cohesion are the top Greek priorities, a source close to the matter told Euractiv. Hungary Bigger budget: No. Budapest does not support the proposed changes to the budget or new revenue sources, reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: No. Hungary supports the current system without any modification. National envelopes: No. A flexible MFF 'with fewer budgetary headings and spending programmes" would, in Budapest's view, shift too much power to the Commission at the expense of member countries. Reform-for-cash: No. It would be 'the exact opposite of what is actually needed: greater flexibility for member states,' not the Commission. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. Cohesion should have a 'dedicated and robust' budget, and CAP should be 'at least on the same level.' Ireland Bigger budget: No. Ireland is 'committed to financing our fair share,' according to a position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean no. Dublin is 'willing to consider proposals for genuine new own resources,' but opposes the proposed EU income based on corporate profits. National envelopes: No. CAP should remain separate from national plans, with its two-pillar structure and independent governing structure. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Ireland sees a role for performance-based EU funding to deliver EU objectives. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. 'Ireland calls for a robustly funded CAP.' Italy Bigger budget: No position. New own resources: No position. National envelopes: No. Italy will fight to maintain both CAP and cohesion in their current form, European Minister Tommaso Foti said on 6 July. Reform-for-cash: No. Common objectives would drastically reduce Italy's ability to design its own interventions, Foti argued. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Latvia Bigger budget: Yes. Latvia supports an increased MFF, the government told Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. Riga is open to discussing various options, including new own resources and joint borrowing. National envelopes: Lean no. 'Latvia is in principle open' but sceptical of 'over-simplification... Cohesion and CAP should remain separate allocations.' Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. But 'the focus should be on reforms that contribute to the effectiveness of the planned investments.' CAP/Cohesion cuts: No position. Lithuania Bigger budget: Lean yes . 'There is a need to discuss increasing the volume of the EU budget', reads a Lithuania position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean no. A larger budget could be financed with the current system or by introducing new income sources. National envelopes: No. It is appropriate with 'some adjustments,' but drastic reforms should be avoided. The core principles of cohesion should be maintained. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. But the Covid loan model should not be extended to policy areas unrelated to national reform agendas, such as CAP. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. Vilnius calls for 'adequate funding' for CAP and 'sufficient cohesion budget for all EU regions. Luxembourg Bigger budget: Lean yes. 'The MFF is a vital instrument' and 'it is essential to take into account new realities when defining future budgetary priorities', Luxembourg's government responded. All other questions: No position. Malta Bigger budget: No position. ' Malta's position on the size of the MFF will be determined by the composition of the EU budget as a whole,' reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. Valletta is open to the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) but strongly opposes any move for EU-level taxation or company profits-based income. National envelopes: Lean no. 'While flexibility is an essential element of any budget, it must not come at the expense of the stability and predictability of investment programmes,' reads the non-paper. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Malta is in favour under certain circumstances. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Yes/no. Malta wants CAP direct payments to be co-financed by national budgets to 'free up EU budgetary resources.' But increased spending on priorities like defence 'must not come at the expense' of cohesion policy. Netherlands Bigger budget: No. Ambitious EU policy is possible within current budgetary parameters and we should 'also look at what the EU could do less of,' a Dutch position paper from March reads. New own resources: Lean yes. The Netherlands is open to new EU income sources and notes that emissions-related tools like CBAM and ETS are less costly for Dutch taxpayers than traditional GNI-based contributions. National envelopes: Lean yes. The government is 'receptive' to the idea of a national plan for distributing funds. Reforms-for-cash: Lean yes. The Netherlands is 'open to exploring' more performance-based budgeting and 'considers it important that member states implement reforms that strengthen their economies' and the bloc. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean yes. The Netherlands prefers to limit spending in general, but wants more for competitiveness and defence. Poland Bigger budget: Yes. Warsaw says the EU's financial ambitions should be 'significantly higher than before,' according to a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. Poland supports the debate on new EU-level revenue sources, but insists on expanding the budget rather than replacing existing funding. This also must not overly burden less affluent countries. National envelopes: No. CAP should keep its own dedicated budget, based on its 'well-established and proven' two-pillar structure. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Some inspiration can be taken from the EU's Covid recovery loan, but must have a 'thematically closer link' to the cash, and reforms 'should not contribute to excessive centralisation and merging of instruments.' CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. The share of the budget allocated to CAP and cohesion should not be reduced. Portugal Bigger budget: Yes. The EU budget must go 'well beyond the current GNI threshold,' according to a Portuguese position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Yes. New EU-level revenue is 'vital' to relieve pressure on the spending side of the budget. National envelopes: No. 'Cohesion and CAP funds should remain autonomous,' the paper reads, with CAP 'built upon its two-pillar structure.' Reform-for-cash: No. Portugal wants to keep core cohesion principles. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. Portugal defends CAP and cohesion as crucial for the EU project. Romania Bigger budget: No position. New own resources: No position. National envelopes and reform-for-cash: Lean no. Romania is among the 14 countries that rallied against making regional funding conditional on national reforms in early July. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No position. Romania did not respond to Euractiv's request for comments. Slovakia Bigger budget: No position Own resources: No position National envelopes: No. 'It is essential to maintain a dedicated EU cohesion policy' and 'we fundamentally reject the centralisation of EU cohesion policy,' reads a Slovak position paper on cohesion policy seen by Euractiv. Reform-for-cash: Yes. Slovakia 'supports the modernisation of EU cohesion policy' and "strengthening the link between cohesion policy and the European Semester," an EU framework for coordinating economic and social policies. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Cohesion should remain a "major European investment policy with an adequate budget" Slovenia Bigger budget: Yes. Slovenia wants a budget 'comparable in size' to the current budget and the €650 billion Covid loan combined, reads a position paper seen by Euractiv. Own resources: Yes. 'All possible options should be explored,' the paper reads. National envelopes: No. 'Specificities of individual thematic areas included in the programme should be recognised.' Reform-for-cash: Lean no. 'Subsidiarity and Member States' ownership of the reforms should be ensured.' CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. The next MFF should ensure that CAP and cohesion funds have 'comparable levels of financing'. Spain Bigger budget: Yes. The EU budget should be 'at least 2% of the EU's annual GDP,' reads a Spanish non-paper, dated February, seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Yes. Spain supports new 'genuine' EU own resources, meaning that they should contribute to increasing the budget rather than replacing direct contributions. National envelopes: Lean no. National envelopes encompassing a number of EU policies 'may not be the most effective way to achieve a simpler and more focused budget', and CAP should maintain its two-pillar structure. Reform-for-cash: No position. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. Spain 'firmly believes in the importance of Cohesion' and CAP must have a 'sufficient and adequate' budget. Sweden Bigger budget: No. Sweden's budget restrictive stance remains firm: 'The EU budget as a share of GNI for regular expenditure should continue to be around 1%,' reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: No. Sweden sees no need for – and is critical of – new EU-level resources. National envelopes: Lean yes. Stockholm wants the EU budget to have a simpler structure and fewer thematic areas and programmes. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. ' Sweden supports, in principle, an implementation model based on performance-based budgeting.' CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean yes. 'Investments in existing or new areas need to be matched by cuts in other areas.' Eddy Wax, Nicoletta Ionta, Charles Szumski, Aurélie Pugnet, and Barbara Zmušková contributed to reporting. (mm)
Euractiv
6 days ago
- Business
- Euractiv
Where all EU countries stand on the next long-term EU budget
The Commission is set to present its big pitch for the EU's 2028–2034 budget (MFF) on Wednesday, promising to drastically 'simplify' and completely rethink how the bloc spends money. The current €1.2 trillion amount is locked in for seven years, divided into 16 different clusters and over 50 budget lines. Roughly a third goes to farmers via the Common Agricultural Policy, another to regional development in Cohesion funds, and the rest to research, foreign policy, industry, and administration. But any overhaul is not up to Brussels alone. Every spending line needs unanimous sign-off from both the Parliament and national capitals. Euractiv asked all 27 governments and combed through position papers to get their views on five crunch questions: Size: Should the budget be increased? Own resources: Should new EU-level income sources, like a carbon tax or joint debt, be introduced? National envelopes: Should the funds reserved for farmers (CAP, two parts) and lagging regions (cohesion, four parts) merge into national cash pots? Reform-for-cash: Should EU countries or regions be forced to make EU-friendly reforms to access EU funds? CAP/Cohesion cuts? Should CAP and cohesion funds be reduced? In a nutshell: Thirteen countries, including France, support a bigger budget. Seven countries, including Germany, oppose an increase. Twelve countries, including France and Germany, support introducing 'new own' resources. Six countries are sceptical. Nineteen countries, including France and Germany, reject an outright merger of cohesion and CAP. But they may still favour a move in that direction, as long as their favourite programmes survive in some shape or form. countries, including France and Germany, reject an outright merger of cohesion and CAP. But they may still favour a move in that direction, as long as their favourite programmes survive in some shape or form. Thirteen countries, including Germany and France, are in favour of increased cash-for-reforms in the next budget. Nine are against. countries, including Germany and France, are in favour of increased cash-for-reforms in the next budget. Nine are against. Fifteen countries reject cuts to cohesion and CAP. The budget needs to be approved unanimously. Austria The government's position has not yet been finalised, officials told Euractiv. Belgium Bigger budget: Lean no. 'EU-level spending should remain focused on areas where it clearly delivers added value,' Deputy Prime Minister Van Peteghem told Euractiv in a statement. Own resources: Lean no. ' Belgium has not yet adopted fixed positions' but expects EU institutions to 'pursue greater efficiency and fiscal discipline in budget execution.' National envelopes: No. 'Belgium believes CAP should remain a separate instrument,' with its own internal distribution key. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. 'Belgium supports a performance-based approach' if it doesn't increase administrative burdens and respects the regional administration architecture of member countries. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No position. Bulgaria Bigger budget: Yes. The next MFF should 'at least' equal the current one and the EU's €650 billion Covid recovery fund together (RFF), reads a position non-paper seen by Euractiv. Own resources: Lean yes. 'We remain open to introducing genuine new own resources,' the paper reads. National envelopes: No. CAP should have a dedicated budget and retain its two-pillar structure, but Bulgaria supports more flexibility between the two pillars. Reform-for-cash: No. The Cohesion Fund should be preserved in its current form, with funding not tied to reform commitments. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Both areas are important. Croatia Bigger budget: Yes. "Croatia advocates an ambitious and robust budget," the government told Euractiv. Own resources: No position. National envelopes and reform-for-cash: Lean no. Greece is among the 14 countries that rallied against making regional funding conditional on national reforms in early July. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Zagreb wants a budget that "ensures a strong cohesion and CAP policy." Cyprus Cyprus did not respond to Euractiv's request in time for publication. Czechia Bigger budget: Lean yes. Czechia 'is ready to discuss a limited increase of the long-term EU budget,' the government told Euractiv. New own resources: Lean no. ' Czechia is in general reserved towards the introduction of new own resources.' National envelopes: No. 'We strongly support maintaining a separate CAP fund.' Czechia is 'cautious towards the possible in-depth reforms' for cohesion. Reform-for-cash: Lean no. Czechia is 'cautious' about greater focus on reforms. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. Cohesion is described as a crucial investment tool. No position given on CAP. Denmark Bigger budget: Lean yes. Despite being traditionally frugal, Denmark is open to a bigger budget. New own resources: Lean yes. 'You're not going hear us say... that we exclude sources of financing such as common debt from the beginning,' Copenhagen's ambassador to the EU said. All other questions: No position. Denmark does not want to share any position, citing its role in leading Council budget negotiations during its presidency, officials told Euractiv. Estonia Bigger budget: Yes. Estonia supports a larger EU budget and is ready to contribute more, along with other EU countries, reads a position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. ' New sources of revenue could be considered if they offer added value' and don't disproportionally burden poorer countries, reads the paper. National envelopes: Lean yes. Estonia favours streamlining funds and 'avoiding overlaps', but prefers adapting existing instruments to creating new ones. Reform-for-cash: Yes. Cohesion 'must continue to support the implementation of structural reforms' and should be aligned with country-specific recommendations. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. New priorities 'cannot be carried out at the expense of a significant reduction in existing areas.' Finland Bigger budget: No. 'The future MFF must be kept at a reasonable level,' reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. The proposals to divert funds from carbon levies (CBAM and ETS 2) are promising, Finland says. National envelopes: Lean yes. ' Finland is open to different models for reforming the future CAP' but insists that farmers' income support must remain a coherent whole. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Finland is 'open to a performance-based approach' but it should not be modelled after the EU's Covid recovery loan. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Yes. 'Cohesion funding should be decreased' and national co-financing of direct payments to farmers can be explored. France Bigger budget: Yes. Macron previously floated the idea of doubling the budget, and a French position paper from March reads that 'it is essential to invest in European priorities by scaling up.' New own resources: Yes. 'The introduction of new own resources is a sine qua non condition for an agreement,' reads the paper. National envelopes: Lean no. France is open to merging cohesion funds, but CAP should have a dedicated budget and 'maintain the two pillars.' Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Strengthening the performance-based approach with a role for national plans is a 'potentially interesting avenue.' CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. The EU needs a CAP with the 'ambition and resources commensurate with the stakes involved.' Germany Bigger budget: No. There is "no basis for increasing the volume of the MFF in relation to economic strength,' reads a German position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. Germany will 'constructively examine' proposals for new EU income sources. National envelopes: No. CAP and Cohesion should remain distinct policy areas, with rural development kept as an 'integral' element of CAP. Reform-for-cash: Yes. Cohesion should 'provide stronger incentives for national reform measures.' CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. CAP should have an 'appropriate budget' to meet high demands. Cohesion funds should be adjusted to be 'more suitable' for future needs. Greece Bigger budget: No position. New own resources: No position. National envelopes and reform-for-cash: Lean no. Greece is among the 14 countries that rallied against making regional funding conditional on national reforms in early July. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. CAP and cohesion are the top Greek priorities, a source close to the matter told Euractiv. Hungary Bigger budget: No. Budapest does not support the proposed changes to the budget or new revenue sources, reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: No. Hungary supports the current system without any modification. National envelopes: No. A flexible MFF 'with fewer budgetary headings and spending programmes" would, in Budapest's view, shift too much power to the Commission at the expense of member countries. Reform-for-cash: No. It would be 'the exact opposite of what is actually needed: greater flexibility for member states,' not the Commission. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. Cohesion should have a 'dedicated and robust' budget, and CAP should be 'at least on the same level.' Ireland Bigger budget: No. Ireland is 'committed to financing our fair share,' according to a position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean no. Dublin is 'willing to consider proposals for genuine new own resources,' but opposes the proposed EU income based on corporate profits. National envelopes: No. CAP should remain separate from national plans, with its two-pillar structure and independent governing structure. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Ireland sees a role for performance-based EU funding to deliver EU objectives. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. 'Ireland calls for a robustly funded CAP.' Italy Bigger budget: No position. New own resources: No position. National envelopes: No. Italy will fight to maintain both CAP and cohesion in their current form, European Minister Tommaso Foti said on 6 July. Reform-for-cash: No. Common objectives would drastically reduce Italy's ability to design its own interventions, Foti argued. Latvia Bigger budget: Yes. Latvia supports an increased MFF, the government told Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. Riga is open to discussing various options, including new own resources and joint borrowing. National envelopes: Lean no. 'Latvia is in principle open' but sceptical of 'over-simplification... Cohesion and CAP should remain separate allocations.' Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. But 'the focus should be on reforms that contribute to the effectiveness of the planned investments.' CAP/Cohesion cuts: No position. Lithuania Bigger budget: Lean yes . 'There is a need to discuss increasing the volume of the EU budget', reads a Lithuania position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean no. A larger budget could be financed with the current system or by introducing new income sources. National envelopes: No. It is appropriate with 'some adjustments,' but drastic reforms should be avoided. The core principles of cohesion should be maintained. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. But the Covid loan model should not be extended to policy areas unrelated to national reform agendas, such as CAP. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. Vilnius calls for 'adequate funding' for CAP and 'sufficient cohesion budget for all EU regions. Luxembourg Bigger budget: Lean yes. 'The MFF is a vital instrument' and 'it is essential to take into account new realities when defining future budgetary priorities', Luxembourg's government responded. All other questions: No position. Malta Bigger budget: No position. ' Malta's position on the size of the MFF will be determined by the composition of the EU budget as a whole,' reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. Valletta is open to the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) but strongly opposes any move for EU-level taxation or company profits-based income. National envelopes: Lean no. 'While flexibility is an essential element of any budget, it must not come at the expense of the stability and predictability of investment programmes,' reads the non-paper. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Malta is in favour under certain circumstances. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Yes/no. Malta wants CAP direct payments to be co-financed by national budgets to 'free up EU budgetary resources.' But increased spending on priorities like defence 'must not come at the expense' of cohesion policy. Netherlands Bigger budget: No. Ambitious EU policy is possible within current budgetary parameters and we should 'also look at what the EU could do less of,' a Dutch position paper from March reads. New own resources: Lean yes. The Netherlands is open to new EU income sources and notes that emissions-related tools like CBAM and ETS are less costly for Dutch taxpayers than traditional GNI-based contributions. National envelopes: Lean yes. The government is 'receptive' to the idea of a national plan for distributing funds. Reforms-for-cash: Lean yes. The Netherlands is 'open to exploring' more performance-based budgeting and 'considers it important that member states implement reforms that strengthen their economies' and the bloc. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean yes. The Netherlands prefers to limit spending in general, but wants more for competitiveness and defence. Poland Bigger budget: Yes. Warsaw says the EU's financial ambitions should be 'significantly higher than before,' according to a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Lean yes. Poland supports the debate on new EU-level revenue sources, but insists on expanding the budget rather than replacing existing funding. This also must not overly burden less affluent countries. National envelopes: No. CAP should keep its own dedicated budget, based on its 'well-established and proven' two-pillar structure. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. Some inspiration can be taken from the EU's Covid recovery loan, but must have a 'thematically closer link' to the cash, and reforms 'should not contribute to excessive centralisation and merging of instruments.' CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. The share of the budget allocated to CAP and cohesion should not be reduced. Portugal Bigger budget: Yes. The EU budget must go 'well beyond the current GNI threshold,' according to a Portuguese position paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Yes. New EU-level revenue is 'vital' to relieve pressure on the spending side of the budget. National envelopes: No. 'Cohesion and CAP funds should remain autonomous,' the paper reads, with CAP 'built upon its two-pillar structure.' Reform-for-cash: No. Portugal wants to keep core cohesion principles. CAP/Cohesion cuts? No. Portugal defends CAP and cohesion as crucial for the EU project. Romania Bigger budget: No position. New own resources: No position. National envelopes and reform-for-cash: Lean no. Romania is among the 14 countries that rallied against making regional funding conditional on national reforms in early July. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No position. Romania did not respond to Euractiv's request for comments. Slovakia Bigger budget: No position Own resources: No position National envelopes: No. 'It is essential to maintain a dedicated EU cohesion policy' and 'we fundamentally reject the centralisation of EU cohesion policy,' reads a Slovak position paper on cohesion policy seen by Euractiv. Reform-for-cash: Yes. Slovakia 'supports the modernisation of EU cohesion policy' and "strengthening the link between cohesion policy and the European Semester," an EU framework for coordinating economic and social policies. CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. Cohesion should remain a "major European investment policy with an adequate budget" Slovenia Bigger budget: Yes. Slovenia wants a budget 'comparable in size' to the current budget and the €650 billion Covid loan combined, reads a position paper seen by Euractiv. Own resources: Yes. 'All possible options should be explored,' the paper reads. National envelopes: No. 'Specificities of individual thematic areas included in the programme should be recognised.' Reform-for-cash: Lean no. 'Subsidiarity and Member States' ownership of the reforms should be ensured.' CAP/Cohesion cuts: No. The next MFF should ensure that CAP and cohesion funds have 'comparable levels of financing'. Spain Bigger budget: Yes. The EU budget should be 'at least 2% of the EU's annual GDP,' reads a Spanish non-paper, dated February, seen by Euractiv. New own resources: Yes. Spain supports new 'genuine' EU own resources, meaning that they should contribute to increasing the budget rather than replacing direct contributions. National envelopes: Lean no. National envelopes encompassing a number of EU policies 'may not be the most effective way to achieve a simpler and more focused budget', and CAP should maintain its two-pillar structure. Reform-for-cash: No position. CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean no. Spain 'firmly believes in the importance of Cohesion' and CAP must have a 'sufficient and adequate' budget. Sweden Bigger budget: No. Sweden's budget restrictive stance remains firm: 'The EU budget as a share of GNI for regular expenditure should continue to be around 1%,' reads a non-paper seen by Euractiv. New own resources: No. Sweden sees no need for – and is critical of – new EU-level resources. National envelopes: Lean yes. Stockholm wants the EU budget to have a simpler structure and fewer thematic areas and programmes. Reform-for-cash: Lean yes. ' Sweden supports, in principle, an implementation model based on performance-based budgeting.' CAP/Cohesion cuts? Lean yes. 'Investments in existing or new areas need to be matched by cuts in other areas.' Eddy Wax, Nicoletta Ionta, Charles Szumski, Aurélie Pugnet, and Barbara Zmušková contributed to reporting. (mm)
Euractiv
12-07-2025
- Business
- Euractiv
EU to tax tobacco, large companies to fund next budget
Whilst EU countries want an ambitious budget, they will also have to repay the bloc's €650 billion covid loans from 2028. The budget proposals must be approved unanimously. Euractiv is part of the Trust Project Eddy Wax and Jacob Wulff Wold Euractiv Jul 12, 2025 15:19 2 min. read News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The European Commission is hoping all EU countries can agree on new taxes on tobacco, large companies, electronics waste and carbon emissions to fund the EU budget, according to a draft proposal seen by Euractiv. The bloc's members are straining their finances, but the Commission wants an ambitious 2028 to 2034 budget (MFF) to boost competitiveness and defence. Direct contributions based on GNI, which financed 56% of the previous budget, "will reach its limits as financing needs increase," writes the Commission in its draft, before presenting its proposal for five new EU-level income sources. A Tobacco Excise Duty Own Resource (TEDOR) would "generate significant revenue" and also help towards the EU's health policy objectives. The document does not detail the excise duties, but Euractiv previously reported that the Commission has considered a 139% tax hike on cigarettes. A Corporate Resource for Europe (CORE) would tax companies with a permanent establishment in the EU and over €50 million in annual net turnover. To aid its green ambitions, the Commission proposes new contributions based on electronics waste. Two carbon levies which have already been floated – ETS1 and CBAM – will tax emissions inside and outside the EU. These proposals will stir debate among EU countries, which must approve them unanimously. To sweeten the deal, most ETS revenues would go to national budgets, and a temporary "solidarity adjustment mechanism" would balance differences between winners and losers of the new system. Proposals from 2020 and 2023 have not progressed much in the council, but the next budget is a unique opportunity. It is very difficult to agree on new revenue sources without also discussing expenditure, one EU diplomat told Euractiv this week. Whilst EU countries want an ambitious budget, they will also have to repay the bloc's €650 billion covid loans – known as the Recovery and Resilience Facility – from 2028. The EU will dedicate roughly one-fifth of its current annual budget size to these repayments (equal to €25-30 billion each year). (ow) Euractiv is part of the Trust Project
