Reshuffling the European Purse: Budgetary Realignments, Agricultural Discontent, and Strategic Futures of the EU (2028–2035)

Abstract

The European Commission’s newly proposed Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2035 has reignited tensions across the continent, especially among agricultural stakeholders, who perceive a dramatic downgrading of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). President Ursula von der Leyen framed the €1.8 trillion budget as smarter and more ambitious, but critical reactions have underscored concerns over inflation-adjusted stagnation, sectoral redistribution, and political legitimacy. This article examines the structural changes in the budget, focusing on the merger of CAP funding into broader "National and Regional Partnership Plans." It also projects three plausible scenarios for the EU’s political-economic evolution based on this fiscal recalibration: (1) the Competitive Cohesion scenario, (2) the Agrarian Revolt scenario, and (3) the Fragmented Union scenario.

Introduction

The European Union (EU) is entering a new fiscal cycle, one defined not only by global economic uncertainty but also by domestic pressures for reform and redistribution. At the heart of the 2028–2035 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) lies a significant departure from traditional budgetary paradigms—most notably, the downgrading of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) from its historical centrality in EU funding priorities.

With only €300 billion allocated to agriculture, down from €386.6 billion in the previous MFF, and with CAP now embedded within broader regional funds, the new structure signals a tectonic shift in EU policy logic.

I. Historical Background of the EU Budget and CAP

The CAP has been a cornerstone of the European project since its inception in 1962. Constituting around 40% of the EU’s budget for decades, it was both a mechanism for economic solidarity and a safeguard for food sovereignty.

The rationale was both pragmatic—ensuring stable agricultural supply—and political, serving as a cohesive tool for integration among member states with diverse agricultural capacities.

Historically, each MFF negotiation cycle has tested the balance between net contributors and net recipients, rural and urban priorities, and competing visions of EU solidarity.

In 2021–2027, the EU allocated €386.6 billion for CAP, underlining its continued, though slightly waning, relevance.

The recent reallocation marks a watershed moment, where digital transitions, climate resilience, and geopolitical realignments have seemingly overtaken agriculture in fiscal priority.

II. Overview of the 2028–2035 Budget Proposal

President Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission has proposed a €1.8 trillion budget over seven years, asserting it to be “larger,” “smarter,” and “sharper.” However, inflation-adjusted assessments and sectoral analyses suggest otherwise. Key changes include:

• CAP Reduction: Reduced to €300 billion and subsumed under "National and Regional Partnership Plans."

• Increased Climate and Digital Investment: Nearly €500 billion earmarked for the Green Deal, climate transition, and digital infrastructure.

• Defense and Border Security: A sharp increase in funding for defense integration, migration control, and geopolitical resilience.

• Research and Innovation: Horizon Europe and AI-focused investments receive substantial increases.

This redistribution has caused discontent, particularly among farming constituencies and rural-dependent member states like France, Poland, Romania, and Hungary.

III. Political and Economic Implications

The budget reshuffle has profound implications:

A. Technocratic Efficiency vs. Political Legitimacy

Framing the budget as “smarter” may align with European technocracy, but it risks democratic disconnection. Farmers protesting in Brussels interpret the new structure as a betrayal, suggesting that rationalized efficiency is being achieved at the cost of political legitimacy and social cohesion.

B. Rural-Urban Divide

The merger of CAP with regional plans may erode targeted rural support, intensifying the rural-urban divide. With agricultural lobbies sidelined, populist movements may find fertile ground among disillusioned rural electorates.

C. Budgetary Truth and Inflation Illusions

Critics like Romanian MEP Siegfried Mureșan argue that the budget fails to keep up with inflation, meaning that real-term funding has decreased. This risks undermining the credibility of the Commission’s communication strategy.

IV. Winners and Losers

Winners:

• Tech and Digital Sector: Set to benefit from AI, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure funds.

• Defense and Security Establishments: Gains from increased spending on common defense capabilities.

• Climate Innovators: The Green Deal continues to dominate fiscal narratives.

Losers:

• Farmers and Rural Communities: Face a double blow—budgetary cuts and a loss of political visibility.

• Peripheral Economies: Countries heavily reliant on CAP and cohesion funds may experience marginalization.

• Traditional Bureaucracies: National administrations may struggle to align fragmented funding structures.

V. Scenario Analysis: Futures of the EU Budgetary Realignment

Scenario 1: Competitive Cohesion (Optimistic)

Premise:

The integration of CAP into broader partnership frameworks incentivizes innovation in rural development. Member states adapt flexibly and invest strategically.

Outcomes:

• EU rural economies undergo modernization.

• Green technology integrates with agricultural production.

• Trust in EU governance is restored.

Risks:

• Requires extraordinary administrative agility and local governance capacity.

Scenario 2: Agrarian Revolt (Populist Backlash)

Premise:

Rural disenfranchisement leads to surging populism in key states like France, Poland, and Romania. CAP disintegration becomes a symbol of EU alienation.

Outcomes:

• Eurosceptic parties gain ground in European and national elections.

• Agricultural strikes, blockades, and protests escalate.

• Policy reversals emerge by mid-2030s.

Risks:

• Weakens EU integration.

• Derails climate transition objectives.

• Encourages national budgetary renegotiations.

Scenario 3: Fragmented Union (Stagnation and Disunity)

Premise:

The new MFF fails to inspire coherent implementation across member states. Divergences between Western and Eastern EU deepen.

Outcomes:

• Varying uptake of agricultural and climate funds.

• CAP-supporting countries demand budgetary opt-outs.

• European Parliament becomes a site of growing fiscal contention.

Risks:

• Institutional gridlock.

• Risk of budgetary renationalization.

• Loss of credibility for future fiscal cycles.

VI. Policy Recommendations

1. Restoration of CAP Visibility: Even within integrated funding schemes, CAP objectives should be distinctly visible and reportable.

2. Transitional Compensation Funds: Establish short-term buffers for farmers most affected by the restructuring.

3. Rural Innovation Clusters: Invest in agri-tech hubs to align rural economies with green and digital transitions.

4. Participatory Budgeting Tools: Engage rural stakeholders in co-designing regional partnership plans.

Conclusion

The 2028–2035 EU budget represents a significant pivot in the Union’s fiscal logic. While it aspires to modernize and future-proof the EU, the marginalization of agriculture risks not only economic disruption but political fracture.

How the EU manages this realignment will determine whether it emerges stronger or further fragmented.

The three scenarios outlined reflect the spectrum of possibilities: from a renewed cohesion project to agrarian backlash or continental disunity.

Ensuring the survival of European solidarity may ultimately depend on how well the Union can balance smart planning with political empathy.