One budget, many agendas: Why the EU should connect the dots in the MFF talks
Authors
As EU leaders prepare for difficult negotiations on the next long-term budget – the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2028-2034 – one question looms large: can Europe finally connect its internal priorities with its external ambitions?
Last week’s General Affairs Council and European Council confirmed that the next MFF will revolve around four overarching priorities: competitiveness, security, resilience and strategic autonomy. Yet, while these priorities are increasingly interdependent, the political and institutional discussions that will define them continue to unfold on separate tracks.
A strategic budget cannot be built in silos
The European Commission’s July 2025 proposal puts competitiveness, security and strategic autonomy at the heart of the EU’s next long-term budget. The proposed Global Europe instrument marks an important evolution in the EU’s external financing architecture, signaling a stronger integration of the EU’s domestic interests in its external engagement.
But this ambition contrasts sharply with the reality of the MFF process. The MFF policy debates and negotiations remain fragmented – across and within institutions, and between Europe’s internal and external agendas. Industry and competitiveness experts focus on the internal market, defence planners debate capabilities and procurement, and external action specialists discuss international partnerships and development. Few mechanisms exist to connect these debates or manage the inevitable trade-offs among them.
Within the Council, the Ad Hoc Working Party on the Multiannual Financial Framework oversees the overall process, while parallel, dedicated sub-groups examine specific components of the budget: from the European Competitiveness Fund to the Global Europe instrument and the National and Regional Partnership Fund.
In the European Parliament, meanwhile, turf battles and political divisions have already delayed the Parliament’s overall position on the Commission proposal. These dynamics further reflect how fragmentation not only cuts across policy domains but also across institutional boundaries.
To be coherent and credible, the EU must start connecting the dots
To remain credible as a geopolitical player and achieve its domestic goals, the EU needs to break down silos. By connecting its competitiveness, security and global partnerships agendas, Europe can move from fragmented debates to a coherent strategic vision and adequate tools that match its global ambitions.
By connecting its competitiveness, security and global partnerships agendas, Europe can move from fragmented debates to a coherent strategic vision and adequate tools that match its global ambitions.
This is precisely the purpose of ECDPM’s ‘Connecting the dots’ initiative: to support more joined-up thinking and dialogue across policy communities working on competitiveness, defence and international cooperation.
|
Starting this autumn, we will bring together policymakers, practitioners and experts in closed-door and public dialogues to explore how Europe can better align its internal priorities with its global ambitions. The first dialogues will focus on:
If you would like to know more, share insights or partner with us, please get in touch with Alexei Jones or Mariella Di Ciommo. |
The external dimension of EU competitiveness
The competitiveness agenda is a major test of whether internal and external priorities can reinforce one another rather than collide. Europe’s economic resilience, technological capacity and prosperity depend not only on innovation and investments at home, but also on the partnerships the EU forges abroad. Securing critical raw materials, building resilient supply chains and opening markets for European companies all require tighter alignment between domestic policies and economic diplomacy.
For instance, local industrialisation in countries with critical raw materials can help Europe de-risk from China. Strengthening production and sourcing of green energy sources abroad needs to go hand in hand with domestic market incentives and demand, as the green hydrogen production case in Namibia suggests. A strong link between domestic reforms and the external budget is therefore a direct investment in Europe’s jobs, energy resilience and long-term prosperity.
The competitiveness agenda is a major test of whether internal and external priorities can reinforce one another rather than collide.
The proposed European Competitiveness Fund aims to boost productivity and industrial resilience inside the Union. In parallel, the Global Europe instrument seeks to advance the EU’s global influence, foster sustainable development and strengthen geoeconomic partnerships. They are designed to complement each other, yet their negotiations risk evolving in isolation.
Their implementation falls under different directorate-generals with limited incentives and mechanisms to cooperate under shared goals. What is needed is not central planning, but smarter processes and incentives that help anticipate inconsistencies and actively seek a greater combined effect. Without them, the European Competitiveness Fund and Global Europe could duplicate efforts or even undermine each other’s goals.
The external dimension of Europe’s defence realignment
The same logic applies to Europe’s evolving defence agenda. Europe’s security debate now centres on industrial capacity and military readiness. The European Commission’s Readiness Roadmap 2030 and plans for a European Defence Union aim to boost the EU’s defence technological and industrial base through coordinated investments across several programmes – from the European Competitiveness Fund to Horizon Europe and the Connecting Europe Facility. The Council recently agreed on key amendments to make this possible.
But security, and ultimately peace, cannot be built within our borders alone. Instability in neighbouring regions, whether in the Sahel, the Middle East or Eastern Europe, directly affects Europe’s safety, supply chains and prosperity. Instruments such as Global Europe and the European Peace Facility are meant to complement internal defence efforts by tackling the external sources of insecurity.
However, their governance and negotiations remain largely separate, raising doubts about whether the EU can dovetail military build-up at home with peacebuilding abroad. Without clear mechanisms to anticipate inconsistencies and ensure combined impact, the EU risks expending incoherent efforts and diluted resources. A truly strategic MFF must bring these strands together under a shared vision that allows the EU to safeguard peace within and outside its borders.
A dual mandate and real trade-offs
The next MFF must align Europe’s internal resilience with credible external partnerships. This means integrating policies and funding across domains and making the trade-offs explicit.
As we recently argued, in the case of Global Europe, clear objectives and transparent criteria are essential not only to manage trade-offs, but also to give partner countries a genuine role in defining priorities and assessing results. Without them, Global Europe risks becoming a one-sided instrument of EU self-interest. This also means making tough choices: for instance, how to engage countries with acute development needs but limited perceived strategic relevance, and how to sustain long-term agendas – from education to gender equality – that bring stability beyond short-term geopolitical gains.
Getting this balance right will be one of the defining strategic choices of the MFF negotiations, shaping not just how much the EU spends, but how strategically it acts.
The views are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ECDPM.
Our work on the MFF
Explore our dossier featuring ECDPM’s work on the new multiannual financial framework and the budget negotiations, along with insights into current and past frameworks.
