Domènec Ruiz Devesa is president of the Union of European Federalists and was an MEP from 2019 to 2024.

Negotiations on the EU’s 2028–2034 Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) have entered a new phase of political significance.

Traditionally, this process follows a familiar pattern: The European Commission proposes a draft budget, the Council bargains behind closed doors, then, at the final stage, the Parliament is called in to give or withhold consent. It’s a sequence of affairs that has long placed the Parliament in a weak position before a nearly finished deal — but not this time.

In a break from previous iterations, this time the Parliament intervened early and managed to secure concessions. This is a feat that should be acknowledged. However, recognizing this success shouldn’t obscure the political stakes that remain.

Following the Commission’s initial proposal, the Parliament was able to assert itself at the very start of the MFF process through a joint letter from the presidents of its main political groups, expressing clear institutional expectations, financial priorities and political conditions. As a result, the Commission offered improvements regarding the role of regional authorities in the implementation of agricultural and cohesion programs, and accepted an enhanced role for the Parliament to monitor the MFF’s execution.

As previously noted by this very publication, the Parliament’s unusually early involvement was able to influence the framework before the Council began its negotiations — a notable break from precedent that should be seen as a strategic gain for parliamentary democracy at the European level.

It’s a move that demonstrates the Parliament can impact the overall direction of EU governance when it acts strategically and cohesively. It suggests that parliamentary authority in budgetary affairs isn’t just a legal formality but a tool that can shape policy. And even more crucially, it is an institutional win that the Parliament should take credit for.

However, it’s important to note that many in the Parliament still view these changes as insufficient. As highlighted by the Socialists and Democrats, Greens and Renew Europe groups, though this early intervention demonstrates that the Parliament can influence the MFF process, the substance of these modifications doesn’t address other structural concerns regarding the budget’s size, long-term strategic priorities or governance transparency.

The decisive phase still lies ahead, and the central negotiations won’t occur between the Parliament and the Commission but between the Parliament and the Council. The Council, representing member countries, traditionally holds the stronger position — especially when unanimity is required.

Still, the Parliament’s consent is indispensable. So, if it is to play an equal role in shaping the bloc’s strategic future, the Parliament must be willing to use its veto power if necessary. And in order to act effectively, it must link its consent on the MFF to broader issues beyond the budget.

The MFF isn’t merely a financial plan — it is the backbone of Europe’s political priorities for the coming decade. And it shouldn’t be adopted in isolation from the bloc’s strategic goals or its capacity to act.

But for that to happen, three things must take place: First, the so-called “passerelle clauses” need to be activated. This would allow the Council to shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in specific policy areas without the need for treaty reform, which is essential to overcome persistent deadlocks.

Next comes European defense. Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union provides a mutual defense clause, which could potentially lead to a common defense. In an era of heightened geopolitical tension, reliance on fragmented national capabilities is untenable. However, a credible European security posture would require joint procurement as well as shared operational planning. Therefore, linking MFF funding to concrete steps in defense integration would improve European security while also reinforcing the bloc’s global credibility.

Lastly, there has to be movement on treaty reform. In November 2023, the Parliament approved a proposal to reform the EU Treaties, aiming to update the institutional framework, democratize decision-making and enhance the bloc’s capacity to act — particularly in terms of enlargement. But such reform cannot advance without political pressure, as the Council has little incentive to take up the proposal unless the Parliament conditions its agreement to the MFF on progress in the reform process.

The MFF negotiations thus present a strategic opportunity. They aren’t only about allocating funds or how these funds are supervised — as fundamental as this is. They’re also about determining the direction of European integration. If the Parliament approves an MFF that doesn’t support the reforms needed to strengthen a potentially larger bloc, then its moment of influence will be wasted.

The achievements of the first phase show that coordinated parliamentary action can, indeed, shape outcomes. Now, the next step is to use that influence where it matters most: in negotiations with the Council.

The Parliament must be strategic and firm. Only then can it ensure that the next MFF isn’t merely a financial instrument but the foundation for a more capable, united and democratic union.