However, the direct biggest obstacle to the Commission's plans managed by von der Leyen may be the opposition to the majority supporting it in the European Parliament, which mainly includes the European People's Party, Socialists and Democrats and the Greens.
The European Union's fresh seven-year budget was planned by its creators as a large leap in power, but the effects of its adoption can be destructive to the community itself. In mid-July, Ursula von der Leyen presented preliminary assumptions for the revolutionary community budget for the period 2028–2034.
Increasing opposition to the EU budget
As shortly as the changes were announced, it became clear that a fresh political chapter of the conflict for dominance was opened. The German president of the European Commission presented a imagination in which her institution would gain fresh powers in the allocation of money, which would actually increase her power over the associate States. In addition, the number of EU funds would be limited from the current 52 to just 16, and the allocation of funds would be primarily based on governments alternatively than local governments.
According to the proposal of von der Leyen, the fresh seven-year budget is expected to amount to as much as EUR 2 trillion, which is expected to represent 1.26 percent of the full EU GDP (for comparison, the current budget is 1.1%). However, which is peculiarly important, the allocation of resources is to take place in a greater way than before in accordance with the conditionality principle. This solution has already been tested on the occasion of the launch of the Covid NextGenerationEU Fund (the alleged Reconstruction Fund) and has proved to be an highly effective tool for influencing the political situation in individual countries. After all, the suspension of funds for the Government of Law and Justice proved to be 1 of the main causes of the failure of power of this formation.
In desire to camouflage the actual intentions of the proposed amendments, Ursula von der Leyen serves Polish budget commissioner Piotr Seraphin. Officially, he is the main author of the proposal for changes to the multiannual budget. A longtime associate of Janusz Lewandowski and Donald Tusk performs as a typical of “New Europe” who allegedly demands changes of the most prize-winning Germany.
Trump, China and Poland. fresh economical War Changes the World
Long list of opponents
For many months, however, the offensive to force budgetary change has been faced with expanding and understandable resistance. 1 of the most prominent groups opposed to the von der Leyen improvement are net contributors to the Community budget, which is, in large simplification, the northern countries. In September, representatives of the Swedish, Danish, Austrian, Dutch and German governments met even in Vienna to establish the principles of cooperation against the European Commission's initiative. The presence of the German government in this group, which is the main beneficiary of the creation of an EU superstate, deserves peculiar attention. In this case, however, Germany does not peculiarly like how the costs of the fresh budget will be shared. Already now, the national Republic is liable for as much as 25% of all payments to the Community cash, and the proposed changes to the budget rise concerns that fresh EU taxes or the issue of fresh Community debt will should be adopted. Berlin prefers to borrow on its own markets (because it is cheaper for it) and all the policy objectives of the Union budget can be achieved with little spending. For this reason, the German government proposes that the full seven-year budget should not exceed 1% of EU GDP.
Another group which opposes the von der Leyen Commission's plans are local governments, for which changes mean exclusion from decision-making over the allocation of funds. The European Commission wants to approve money straight for the governments of the associate States so that they can be controlled directly. It convinces that money will yet flow to local governments. However, local government organisations across Europe are of a different opinion and call the von der Leyen proposal "nationalisation of EU funds".
Trade unionists throughout Europe are besides among the opponents of change. The European Commission has already taken the first steps to increase the retirement age throughout the community, which seems inevitable in view of the widespread demographic disaster. A fresh proposal has even been made that countries that do not adapt retirement age to economical requirements should be suspended from the fresh budget.
Despite the fact that the current retirement age is absolutely untenable, the countries that have tried to rise it so far have faced large social discontent (which has shown even violent protests in France or Belgium). Although we can even appreciate the fact that the European Commission wants to take on specified unpopular changes, the price will most likely be a clear increase in discontent with European integration.
However, any praises to the European Commission would be far from deserved. The Eurocrats are not afraid about the pension systems and the solvency of the associate States, but, above all, the desire to take full control of the continent. In the position of von der Leyen and her colleagues, raising the retirement age is essential in the position of the anticipation of further joint debt of the full community. In order to implement spending on ideological purposes, specified as climate policy or equality, cuts in the pension strategy are needed.
Palade: No more illusions. The Government of Tusk is falling apart?”
Problems in the Euro-Parliament
However, the direct biggest obstacle to the Commission's plans managed by von der Leyen may be the opposition to the majority supporting it in the European Parliament, which mainly includes the European People's Party, Socialists and Democrats and the Greens. According to the representatives of this group, the improvement is opaque, harmful to agriculture, introduces besides much centralisation in the allocation of resources and weakens worker privileges. In early October, coalition leaders issued a message in the European Parliament calling on the Commission to revise its assumptions, pointing out that the improvement of the EU budget "weakens democracy" and limits the competence of the Community Parliament itself. The vote on the European Parliament's study assessing the draft budget is due to take place in November and it is likely that the consequence will be very disappointing for von der Leyen.
Some Eurocrats besides talk more and more about the flaws in the distribution of EU funds. Limiting the decision-making of local governments, fresh rules on the allocation of resources and forcing unpopular changes can lead to euro-sceptic sentiments emerging even in environments that have traditionally been a stone for the European Union itself. Local governments, unlike any governments, have not been in the lead function as the adversaries of the centralisation process.
It is not yet known how the dispute over the budget will be resolved, but it is already clear that it will clearly weaken the Union itself. Ursula von der Leyen proposed changes which can only be considered beneficial by a narrow group of decision-makers. According to all probability, the German female lost her lust for power: the large political benefits of the introduction of the conditionality rule greatly increased her appetite and prompted her to extend to the full budget. Meanwhile, the same effect of expanding control over the actions of individual associate States could have been achieved in at least respective another ways. Von der Leyen may gotta retreat from her proposals, but until she has developed a fresh strategy to gain even more power, the wave of Euroscepticism on the continent may already be besides advanced to argue it.
