Germany renews its hard stance on EU budget demanding hundreds of billions in cuts

The EU’s long-term budget is its multi-year financial plan. It sets how much the European Union can spend and where that money should go. The plan matters because it supports shared priorities across member states, rather than being a single country’s budget. It also determines the scale of Europe’s response to security and economic challenges.

The article identifies several spending areas. These include competitiveness, innovation, research, defence, security and support for Ukraine. Agriculture and cohesion funding would remain in the budget. Cohesion funding helps maintain the EU’s regional support role, while agriculture remains a major existing commitment.

The next budget is still being negotiated. Germany says the Commission’s proposal is too large and wants deep reductions. Berlin also wants agriculture and cohesion funding to fall from about 66% of the budget combined to 50%. The final plan will shape how much money Europe can direct toward geopolitical priorities.

The proposed cuts are exceptionally large in political terms. Germany says the European Commission’s proposal was “far too high” and wants it reduced by at least several hundreds of billions of euros. That is not a final figure, but it signals the scale of Berlin’s objection to the draft budget.

The Irish EU presidency has already reduced the proposal by around €140 billion in its latest negotiating framework. Germany says this reduction is insufficient. Its position is that more cuts will definitely be necessary before member states can agree. The figures show that the dispute is about the overall size of the budget, not only individual programmes.

Agriculture and cohesion funding currently account for roughly 66% of the EU budget together. Germany supports reducing their combined share to 50%. The proposed shift would free a larger portion for competitiveness, innovation, research, defence, security and Ukraine, although the article does not specify each programme’s future amount.

The European Commission can draft and propose the EU’s long-term budget, but it does not decide the final package alone. Member states negotiate the framework through the European Council and Council process. Germany is therefore a participant with the ability to insist on changes, including a smaller total budget and no new common borrowing.

The article shows this negotiating mechanism in action. The Irish EU presidency produced a framework that cut around €140 billion from the Commission proposal. Germany rejected that reduction as insufficient. European Council President António Costa is expected to issue another proposal before an informal summit at the end of November.

This process gives national governments substantial influence over EU-wide spending. A deal is targeted before Christmas, but the article describes the negotiations as difficult. Germany’s demands matter because agreement requires member states to accept the overall direction, financing rules and spending priorities, not merely the Commission’s initial draft.

Germany wants a smaller budget with a sharper strategic focus. Berlin’s preferred priorities are competitiveness, innovation, research, defence, security and Ukraine. The argument is that Europe faces geopolitical and economic pressures that require more concentrated spending rather than a larger budget spread across existing commitments.

Agriculture and cohesion funding would not disappear. Germany supports keeping both areas, while reducing their combined share of the EU budget. The article gives a clear target: their share should fall from roughly 66% today to 50%. This would change the balance between traditional spending and newer strategic priorities.

The proposal remains part of an unresolved negotiation. Germany has not presented a complete programme-by-programme allocation in the article. Instead, it has set out a direction: protect agriculture and cohesion, but give more budget space to defence, competitiveness, research, security and Ukraine. Other member states must decide whether that trade-off is acceptable.

Common EU borrowing is a way for the European Union to raise money jointly rather than relying only on national contributions or existing revenues. The debt is linked to a shared European programme. Germany is drawing a firm line against using this approach again to finance the EU’s ambitions.

When asked whether Berlin would accept another round of borrowing if countries refused to increase their contributions, Ambassador Thomas Ossowski answered: “No, definitely not new common borrowing.” Germany’s stated reason is that further joint debt would undermine national sovereignty. Berlin is willing to discuss new EU “own resources,” but rejects an EU-level tax on European companies.

This position limits the financing choices available in the budget talks. If spending priorities remain high but shared debt is unavailable, governments may need to consider cuts, national contributions or other EU revenue sources. The article does not say which alternative will prevail. It shows that the dispute concerns both how much Europe spends and who controls the financial responsibility.

Germany’s position creates a difficult funding balance. It wants less total EU spending, yet it also wants more attention on defence, security, competitiveness and Ukraine. Those priorities could compete for a smaller pool unless traditional programmes lose money or governments provide other financing. Refusing new common borrowing further narrows the available options.

The article gives Ukraine a specific example. The €90 billion in loans already arranged for Kyiv was financed outside the regular EU budget, using the bloc’s existing “headroom”. This means that support did not directly require cuts to farmers, families or cohesion funding. However, the mechanism has limits because further support will be needed through the winter and into next year.

Germany says Europe should continue supporting Ukraine and expects the G7 and other partners to contribute. The likely pressure is therefore political and financial: leaders must agree on cuts, contributions, alternative resources or outside help. The article does not quantify future defence or competitiveness funding, so the eventual effects remain unsettled.

The EU budget is developed through a shared process. The European Commission makes a proposal, then member states negotiate changes through the Council and European Council. A presidency can circulate a revised framework, and European Council President António Costa is preparing another proposal. The goal is a deal before Christmas, although the negotiations remain difficult.

The budget is financed through existing EU resources, national contributions and, in some cases, borrowing. The article says Germany will discuss new EU “own resources” but rejects an EU-level tax on European companies. It also says Berlin opposes new common borrowing. The €90 billion in Ukrainian loans used existing budget headroom outside the regular budget.

This arrangement reveals a tension at the heart of the dispute. Europe wants shared action on Ukraine, defence and competitiveness, but Germany insists that joint debt could weaken national sovereignty. Member states must therefore balance common priorities against control of national money. The final budget will show how far they accept EU-wide solutions.