Spending

Europe's problems are real. More EU spending is not the solution.

The Commission's 2028–2034 proposal commits €1.76 trillion of taxpayer money, a 32% increase over the current framework. Every euro of it is ultimately a euro extracted from European taxpayers, routed through Brussels, and returned to member states with friction deducted. The question is not whether the EU should spend money. It is whether it should spend this much, on these things, decided this centrally.

EPICENTER's answer is no. Not because we oppose the EU, but because we take its founding logic seriously.

The single market test

The EU budget exists to make the single market work: to fund what member states genuinely cannot do alone, and only that. By this standard, the bulk of the proposed budget fails the test. Cohesion transfers and agricultural income support are redistribution dressed as investment, money moving between national accounts with Brussels collecting a fee for administration. The €409 billion European Competitiveness Fund is industrial policy by another name, with a track record to match: Northvolt, a flagship EU-backed green manufacturer, went bankrupt.

There is a better way. EPICENTER proposes a budget capped at 1% of EU GNI: lean, focused, and grounded in the EU's founding purpose. We support spending with real cross-border logic: research infrastructure, energy interconnectors, external border protection, learning mobility. We argue for returning agricultural and cohesion competences to member states that understand their own economies, and for replacing the subsidy machine with the deregulation that would actually release Europe's €8 trillion in dormant private capital.

A leaner EU budget is not austerity

Jump to spending item

Cohesion, Agriculture & Maritime

Jump to €385B

National & Regional Plans

Jump to €385B

Social Climate Fund

Jump to €328.8bn

Horizon Europe

Jump to €177.2B

Clean Transition

Jump to €26.2B

Defence & Space

Jump to €131B

Digital Transition

Jump to €51.5B

Health & Bio-Economy

Jump to €21.5B

Erasmus+

Jump to €42.2B

Connecting Europe Facility

Jump to €81.2B

Global Europe

Jump to €248.4B

Administration & Pensions

Jump to €104.5B

Cohesion, Agriculture & Maritime / National and Regional Partnership Plans

Commission

The Commission's new National and Regional Partnership Plans bundle €865 billion in cohesion and agricultural spending into a single mega-instrument, consolidating 14 existing programmes. It is presented as simplification. In practice, it brings together cohesion policy, agricultural support, and social spending under a single delivery mechanism modelled on the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Half the entire EU budget goes to two things: paying farmers not to compete, and transferring money from richer regions to poorer ones.

EPICENTER

Agricultural income support and cohesion transfers do not pass the single market test. They are not solving cross-border problems that member states cannot handle alone. They are subsidising national policy choices from a Brussels budget. Poland, Spain, and Hungary know their own regional development needs better than any fund administrator in the Commission.

We support a phased elimination of CAP income support and a return of cohesion competences to national, regional, and local level, freeing up resources for things the EU budget should actually be doing.

Social Climate Fund

Commission

Rising energy costs are a real concern for millions of European households, and the green transition should not become a burden that falls disproportionately on those least able to absorb it. The Social Climate Fund, with a budget of €65 billion, is designed to cushion lower-income households and small businesses from the costs of expanded carbon pricing under ETS2.

EPICENTER

EPICENTER's position is that the Social Climate Fund's objectives should be met at national, regional, and local level, funded in part by ETS revenues that currently flow to member state budgets. The money exists. It does not need to pass through Brussels first.

Horizon Europe

Commission

The EU's answer to falling behind America and China is to spend more on research. The Commission proposes nearly doubling Horizon's budget from €93.5 billion to €175 billion. The ambition sounds right. The evidence does not support it.

EPICENTER

EPICENTER supports a reformed, smaller Horizon focused on basic research with genuine European added value. What we oppose is using it as a vehicle for industrial policy and commercialisation subsidies. Europe's competitiveness gap will not be closed by grants. It will be closed by removing the regulatory barriers that stop European companies from scaling.

Clean Transition & Decarbonisation

Commission

Climate ambition is not in question. What is in question is whether subsidies are the right tool to deliver it. The Commission embeds climate objectives throughout the entire MFF, with 35% of total spending earmarked for climate and environmental goals. In practice, this means billions flowing through grants and managed funds to technologies chosen by administrators rather than markets. The track record is mixed: flagship investments like Northvolt have gone bankrupt, and the definition of "climate-related" has expanded to cover almost anything.

EPICENTER

EPICENTER's view is that the EU's climate goals are best served by getting the incentive structure right. Carbon pricing already exists. The priority should be making it work better and using the revenues to cut taxes on labour and energy. Direct subsidies to specific technologies should be the last resort, not the default.

Europe can decarbonise without politicians and bureaucrats picking winners.

Defence & Space

Commission

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has permanently changed Europe's security calculus. The Commission has responded with a fivefold increase in defence spending, reaching €131 billion for the 2028-2034 period. The direction is right, but the discipline must follow. Budget efficiency matters most precisely when the stakes are highest.

EPICENTER

EPICENTER supports increased cooperation where it delivers genuine collective value by defending the integrity of the Single Market. We prioritise military mobility, investing in the cross-border infrastructure needed to move equipment and forces freely across the Union. The EU also holds a unique advantage in funding disruptive R&D. Because the EU lacks entrenched military branches, it can bypass traditional interests to fund high-tech, cost-saving innovations that national bureaucracies often overlook.

What we must avoid is using the defence label to justify prestige projects, duplicating NATO structures, or protectionism that drives up prices. More money for European defence is a strategic necessity. A blank cheque is not.

Digital Transition

Commission

The EU's digital leadership budget is set for a fivefold increase to €51.5 billion. While catching up to the US and China in tech is vital, EPICENTER is concerned that the current approach relies too much on top-down direction rather than market growth.

The plan involves selecting preferred technologies in sectors like AI and semiconductors. However, the track record for these types of grants shows they often fail to attract significant private co-investment. At the same time, a growing mountain of rules is creating a heavy compliance burden. Small tech firms already face hundreds of thousands of euros in costs and months of delays just to meet these new regulatory requirements.

EPICENTER

We believe digital success should be driven by fixing the structural barriers to private investment. Instead of picking winners, the EU should focus on simplifying regulations and completing the Capital Markets Union. Real competitiveness comes from making it easier for European companies to scale and innovate on their own.

Health & Bio-Economy

Commission

The EU's role in health expanded significantly following the pandemic, leading to a new focus on crisis preparedness and coordination. For the 2028-2034 period, these functions are folded into the European Competitiveness Fund with an allocation of roughly €20 billion.

EPICENTER

EPICENTER supports EU action where it delivers clear added value across borders, such as managing rare diseases, sharing health data, and coordinating research. These are areas where no single country can effectively act alone.

However, EU spending should not replace national healthcare systems or day-to-day services. We believe the focus must shift from simply tracking administrative activity to measuring actual health outcomes. Success depends on better regulatory conditions and coordination, not just larger budgets.

Erasmus+

Commission

Erasmus+ is one of the EU's most successful programmes, helping millions of people study and train across borders. For the 2028-2034 period, the Commission proposes increasing its budget to €40.8 billion and expanding its reach to cover a wider range of social and youth activities.

EPICENTER

EPICENTER supports the programme's core mission of boosting mobility and skills. However, we believe it should be more focused. Currently, the programme is drifting into areas like sports and general solidarity, a mission creep that makes it difficult to track if the extra money is actually delivering results.

We recommend narrowing the focus back to long-term student and apprentice exchanges that show clear educational value. Success shouldn't be measured just by how many people participate, but by tangible outcomes like improved employment and recognised qualifications. A more disciplined Erasmus+ will protect its most valuable work while ensuring every euro spent is justified.

Connecting Europe Facility

Commission

The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) is set for a major expansion to €81.4 billion, driven largely by new energy and military mobility needs. While EPICENTER supports the goal of better connecting transport, energy, and digital networks, we believe more money must be matched by better strategy.

Current "megaprojects" often face massive cost overruns and delays. Rail Baltica, for example, has seen costs jump nearly 300%. We recommend creating specific funding rules for these massive projects to improve accountability. For energy, the priority should be on liberalising the permitting process and building cross-border grids rather than just increasing financial input.

EPICENTER

Success in connecting Europe depends on smart deregulation and a clear focus on bottlenecks. The EU should prioritise projects that deliver genuine value for taxpayers, ensuring that infrastructure is built faster and works more efficiently across the entire Union.

Global Europe

Commission

The EU aims to project its influence abroad through a budget of €127.5 billion, focusing on development, humanitarian aid, and strategic partnerships. While maintaining a strong voice on the world stage is important, EPICENTER is concerned that this funding often lacks clear objectives and rigorous oversight.

Current spending is frequently spread too thin across hundreds of projects, making it difficult to measure real impact.

EPICENTER

EPICENTER recommends that Global Europe funding be tied to strict performance criteria. We should prioritise deep trade partnerships and stability in the immediate neighbourhood over broad, open-ended development grants. Success abroad depends on quality and strategic focus, not just the size of the cheque.

Funding should not be used as a general-purpose tool for diplomatic goodwill, but rather targeted at measurable goals that align with European interests.

Administration and Pensions

Commission

The EU's administrative costs are set to rise to €91.5 billion, covering the salaries, pensions, and daily operations of the Brussels institutions. While a functioning bureaucracy is necessary to manage the Single Market, EPICENTER believes that when member states are tightening their budgets, the EU must also demonstrate fiscal restraint.

A major concern is the growing liability of the EU pension scheme, which remains unfunded and reliant on future tax revenues. At the end of 2024, pension commitments to EU staff amounted to €93 billion. Annual pension payments reached €2.5 billion in 2024, up from €580 million in 2000, an increase of 143% in constant euros. Combined with automatic salary indexation, these costs create a rigid budget that is difficult to reform.

EPICENTER

EPICENTER recommends a zero-growth policy for administrative spending in real terms. Any new personnel for emerging priorities should be offset by staff reductions in outdated departments. Furthermore, the EU should transition its pension system toward a funded model to reduce the long-term burden on taxpayers and ensure the bureaucracy remains sustainable and efficient.

Continue reading

See how EPICENTER would reform the revenue side, or go straight to the full recommendations.

Revenue Chapters
Recommendations