BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s centrist political groups are backing down on a threat to vote against a key part of the EU’s long-term budget, following concessions made by the European Commission.

After weeks of pressure from the political groups, the Commission on Sunday evening proposed several changes to its plan for the next seven-year EU budget in an effort to avert an all-out rebellion during a vote on Thursday, according to a document seen by POLITICO.

The presidents of the Commission and Parliament — Ursula von der Leyen and Roberta Metsola — and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, spoke Monday to discuss the budget plan.

The center-right European People’s Party, the Socialists and Democrats, the liberals of Renew Europe, and the Greens had on Oct. 30 sent a letter to the Commission demanding changes to the proposal — especially the way it deals with EU cash for regions and for farmers — and threatening to refuse to engage in negotiations if those changes were not made.

Hours after the Commission changed its plans, those groups are now backing down.

“Victory for the European Parliament in defending farmers and regions in the next long-term EU budget,” Siegfried Mureșan, the EPP’s lead negotiator on the budget, wrote on social media on Monday.

A Renew Europe official, granted anonymity to speak freely, told POLITICO that the group “will not ask for a resolution rejecting national plans to be tabled for a vote in the plenary this week.”

Lawmakers and officials from S&D and Greens also indicated that the resolution is unlikely to come to fruition, despite some misgivings about the Commission’s proposed compromise.

“There is nothing substantial to answer the main demands of the [European Parliament’s] letter,” Jean-Marc Germain, a Socialist lawmaker who works on the budget file, told POLITICO.

The French MEP added that he still supports rejecting a major part of the Commission’s budget proposal — although several colleagues privately admitted that any resolution seeking to bring down the proposals is unlikely to pass without the support of EPP and Renew.

Compromise pleases EU countries

The Commission’s changes also have to be backed by national capitals, which are generally reluctant to give concessions to the Parliament early in the negotiating process.

Frederiksen did not oppose the Commission’s suggested changes during the meeting with Metsola and von der Leyen, according to an official with knowledge of the talks. 

A senior EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak freely, said on Monday that “I don’t have many issues with the content of the [Commission’s] paper.”

The proposals “overlap significantly with positions expressed by member states in Council,” the diplomat added.

This is a significant dial-down from previous threats by the Council that caving in to Parliament’s demands could have thrown a spanner into the negotiations.

“The Commission forced the Danish presidency to accept these changes over the weekend” to avert Parliament’s rejection, said an EU official with knowledge of the discussions.

Parliament is opposed to the Commission’s plan to pool funds for regions and farmers into one single pot, which makes up around half of the total budget, as many MEPs claim that this will cut Parliament and regional leaders out of decision-making and hand too much power to national governments.

To address these complaints, the Commission on Sunday proposed a “rural target” that would compel governments to spend 10 percent of the amount of money in the national plans on agriculture.

The Commission has also suggested giving regional leaders more power to determine how the money is being spent ― including by giving them a seat at the table in key planning meetings between national governments and Commission officials.

Finally, the Commission suggested giving Parliament a bigger role in deciding how the EU’s public funding is being spent.

In a further concession, the Commission on Monday morning sent an updated document, seen by POLITICO, in which it used language that is more aligned with Parliament’s position.

It described the suggested compromises as “proposals in the legal text,” as requested by Parliament.