In a possible war with Russia and in potential crises (eg climate) he plans to throw half of the 2.8 trillion. euro that has been planned as new community and state expenditure In the next decade the EU.
It is recalled that last Thursday (July 17, 2025) the plan of the puzzle of new funding planned by Brussels (EU) for the next decade, both at the Community and the national level, was completed.
The second part of the EU funding puzzle plan, as announced by the Commission concerns the “Financial Framework Program” or otherwise Community budget in the period 2028-12034 height of 2 trillion. euro.
The first piece of the puzzle was announced on March 19, 2025, when the EU Summit decided one Package 800 billion. Euro for the defense in 2025 – 2030, the famous Rearmeu 20230 (escape clause, Safe).
Overall, that is, The EU as all and its members – members separately, have announced (although there are still many to be finally decided) for the period 2025 – 2034, that is, almost for the next decade new costs of 2.8 trillion. euro.
Looking at the 2.8 trillion package. Euro, may see that the priorities that the EU sets are as follows:
- Defense costs (800 billion euros from Rearmeu plus at least 149 billion euros from the Community budget, that is, at least 949 billion euros) significantly exceed national and regional cooperative actions for social cohesion, agriculture, etc. (at most 865 million euros).
More briefly, at least 33% of all planned European costs will go to defense.
- At most 30% of new Community spending will go to social cohesion, agriculture, etc.
- Follow Reserve funds (crisis mechanism etc) corresponding to 16 % of total costs and Finally, the competitiveness fund, which is just 10%, removing the funds that will go to the defense industries (278 billion euros).
Other words, ½ of total new funds (ie amounts of 1,404 trillion euros of € 2.8 trillion) decided by the EU to drop the… very state and transnational (community money) concerns defense (to avoid wars) and possible crises. (eg natural disasters), while the other ½ in “peaceful” economic activities.
In relation to this puzzle, three key points of differentiation should be highlighted in relation to the past, both with funding sources and their targeting.
1.
First – first in relation to the Community budget, the Commission proposes a new “crisis” treatment mechanism without clearly clarifying what it means by saying “crisis”, that is, whether it is economic, war or climate.
However, sources from Brussels, talking about this tool “photographing” her climate crisisthat is, the possibility of giant funds to address possible natural disasters (eg floods) and… certain water deficiencies, especially in the European South (together in Greece).
The funds that will “endow” the crisis tool, along with various other “pillows” from various other funds, amount to nearly 455 billion. euro or otherwise at 22% of the total Community budget.
This means that for scheduled actions The EU plans to allocate only 1,545 trillion. euro (2 trillion which is the total budget minus the 455 billion euros that remain as a “piggy bank” for emergency time).
For anyone who didn’t … understand, The funds of the “piggy bank”, that is, the “crisis mechanism” will be out of scheduled EU grants and will be partially, completely or at all dependent on the appearance or non -appearance, their crowd and range, and in the form of loans to the countries they could need.
It is perhaps that the source of their funding is recommended by the Commission to be the issuance of Eurobonds, as it did during the crowns.
However, the main financiers of the Community budget, the Germans continue to “exclude” the issuance of Eurobonds for the concentration of 395 billion. euro to deal with crisis.
In a statement last Friday, July 18, 2025, during a press conference, with all the material, the German Chancellor was more than clear, stating that:
- “As for finances, I would like to point out that, in fact, the European Union has no contractual right to be charged. This is a conventional basis for our cooperation within the European Union. There are permissible exceptions and derogations. The European Union has made use of such an exception, for example, in relation to the help of rebuilding due to crone. But this is an exception and it should not be the rule. “
- “The justification of further exemptions on the grounds that we are constantly facing new, unpredictable challenges, is not, in my view, a viable answer. Because everything that is coming to us now is the new regularity in Europe, and the European Union must also give new answers to this new regularity – which is so different from what we have experienced in Europe in recent decades and which we believed would continue forever – and new answers mean new priorities.
In simple words, 22% (not a small percentage!) of Community funds for 2028 -2034 not only concern “unpredictable”, critical situations, but -for the time being -its source of funding, as the main player in the EU, Germany, says no to Eurobonds. And not only that, but one has to take into account the political circle in Germany: in 2027 when the Europeans have to end up in the final Plan of Community Budget and the subsequent federal elections in Germany are scheduled. And against Mertz’s ruling party, the far -right AfD will be, with the current context, which not only does not… discuss Eurobonds, but is in favor of leaving the country from the EU…
2. Contribution to large companies “selling” to the EU: German veto and bazaar with duties
The second point of high friction inside the EU in terms of the Plan of the Community budget for 2028 – 2034 concerns The funding of the second and largest lent part of scheduled actions through funds of 1,545 trillion. euro.
The Commission has proposed an increase in revenue from its own resources mainly through a new “corporate resource for Europe (Core)”. It is about one “An annual lump sum contribution of all companies to the field of application operating and selling to the EU with an annual turnover of more than € 100 million per year. This resource is expected to create about € 6.8 billion per year, on average »or 47.6 billion. Euro on a scale of 7 years.
It is noted at this point that this proposal concerns corporate giants who are “active” and “sell” to the EU.without distinguishing between European and non -European companies, thus leaving the window open to pay this resource first – first American and Chinese companies – mammoths that have an extensive presence in the EU, which would be (if applicable) a wedge throughout the duty.
And at this point, the basic funders of the Community budget, the Germans are vertically against.
Mertz himself repeated this position last Friday, and last Thursday from London he said clearly “What is excluded is corporate taxation by the European Union. The European Union has no legal basis for this. We could unanimously decide on the matter if needed, but I can exclude the possibility that Germany would follow such a course. We don’t. We are currently reducing the tax burden of businesses in Germany, but not to create space for the European Union to increase it. This is excluded. “
What does this mean? Mean that The basic new “same” resource proposed by the Commission for the next Community budget (beyond the Euro-Libraries for the “Crisis Mechanism”) for scheduled actions, that is, the EU contribution to businesses with a turnover of over 100m euros is in the air due to the veto of Germany, Mertz’s national economic policy is to reduce the taxation of German businesses in order to make them more competitive…
3. More than one in three EU member states is not going … war
The third point to be noted is concerned The infamous EU defense program, the Rearmeu 2030.
As is well known, this has two basic tools. The first is the activation of the escape clause for defense and the second is the common Safe war fund.
The amounts that can -if they wish -EU Member States to mobilize through activation of the escape clause can reach 650 billion. euro.
However, So far, 10 out of 27 or otherwise 37% of EU members have not requested the activation of this clause.
If this attitude continues in the following years, then it would not be arbitrary to say what37% of 650 billion. EUR target by the EU to increase its defense spending or otherwise 240 billion. Euro may be a divergence from this goal…
The main reasons why these 10 countries did not call for the activation of the escape clause are that they do not raise fiscal new debts, nor do they estimate that they are threatened by Russia, China, etc.
As for the Safe which aspires to raise $ 150 billion in funds. Euro and give them as low -profile loans, it is a pending funding with the source, with the Germans already excluding the issuance of Eurobologists, as well as the loan from Safe, as their political leadership has already said they can borrow cheaper from Safe.
Other words, At least 30% of Rearmeu (800 billion euros) and 8.5% of the total funds given by the green light the Commission will be allocated as Community and government spending are completely in the air, as a large portion of EU member states do not want to increase defense spending (through the European fund). Safe loans through Eurobond issuance.