"Be ready for a veto": Devesa's message for the new European budget

The debate on any Community budget usually lasts until the last minute before it is implemented. And it is one of the debates that all European institutions, including the European Parliament, play a decisive role in shaping it.

With the Commission's proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-34 on the table, the controversies are already intense. The main objections raised by the "traditional" Eurogroups, including that of the European People's Party, mainly concern the proposed merger of cohesion and CAP funds as well as the proposed amount of the budget based on the increased needs and additional objectives of the Union.

A few hours after his statement to Politico about the need for determination in the possibility of the use of the veto by the European Parliament, the President of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) and former Spanish MEP of the Social Democrats (SnD) Domenec Devesa was in Athens and spoke to insider.

An opportunity for a political deepening of the Union

He argued that the European Parliament must be prepared to use its "veto" on the one hand to strengthen the amount of the budget and the support of Regions and farmers and on the other hand to achieve further political deepening beyond the expectations for a common defense approach.

"We need to strengthen the role of the Regions and the European Parliament in the multiannual budget. At the same time, however, it is an excellent tool for institutional innovations. That is why we must encourage Parliament to be smart and to tell the governments of the member states... look, if you want us to vote on your MFF — which must be approved — then you must also move forward with both defense and political union," he stressed.

He added: "The European Parliament is on our side. Now, we have to do the work with the member states."

The interview in detail

You recently openly called on the European Parliament to be ready to veto the proposal for the next budget. Because; And how would this help create the consensus needed for the next Multiannual Financial Framework or for the European Commission's omnibus packages?

From our point of view, the federalist point of view, it is very clear that we need a defensive union. A defence alliance cannot only be about the purchase or joint production of weapons. It must include a European chain of command, a European staff, a system of territorial defence. And that means that we also need a political union. We cannot have a defence union without democratic control, without democratic legitimacy. I believe that public opinion is in favour — if you look at the Eurobarometer, a large majority wants a European army and a veto-free system. A federal political union also means this.

We have the European Parliament in favour. However, the governments of the member states are not moving in this direction. So, either we can convince them — we have not been very successful in this so far — or the European Parliament can make use of an important tool: a possible veto on the European Union's multiannual budget. The Multiannual Financial Framework is not an end in itself. It is very important to increase its size because 1% of European GDP is not enough. And we must not "kill" the funding of the Regions and farmers in order to give more money to defense. So we need to increase the budget as a whole.

We need to strengthen the role of the Regions and the European Parliament in the multiannual budget. At the same time, however, it is an excellent tool for institutional innovations. That is why we must encourage Parliament to be smart and to tell the governments of the member states... look, if you want us to vote on your MFF — which must be adopted — then you too must move on to defence and to political union.

On the one hand, I understand that when you are in crisis or under pressure, you need to make more difficult decisions. On the other hand, do you think that the federalists, or your political group, need some repositioning to deal with the current geopolitical reality?

These geopolitical shifts strengthen the argument in favor of federal union. We are 27 nation-states. We cannot survive alone against Russia. Trump is not an ally, it's very clear. And the Chinese too. So we need to be more united. And what does this mean? It's easy to say — almost like a slogan — "a more united Europe". But what does it mean in practice?

It is the federalist proposal: to have a European defense that we can activate if NATO is not available or if the Americans are not available. And to have a more efficient and democratic decision-making process. That is, a system without a veto and a Parliament that can also decide on revenue and taxation.

You have already referred to the new MFF. To build consensus, you need to persuade the so-called "frugal" to invest more in the EU. Under geopolitical shifts and current pressure, how is this possible? Do you think there is a way to convince them?

The "thrifty" are also in favor of funding new priorities: research and defense — and we can all agree on that. But to get there, they need a new MFF with the support of the European Parliament. Otherwise, we keep the current MFF, which will be extended. They therefore do not receive funding for the new priorities. This is an incentive for compromise, for them to understand that we need a bigger budget so that we do not sacrifice important policies for the non-"thrifty" - let's call them so, Greece, Spain, Italy, France... For us, cohesion and agricultural policy are important. Therefore, we need a compromise.

Under this pressure and these current shifting developments, how optimistic can a federalist be?

Jean Monnet had said "I am not optimistic, I am determined". And I agree with that. The point is not to make assumptions about what will potentially happen. It is to be determined, to defend our positions with logic, with facts and with conviction, in order to convince. The European Parliament is on our side. Now, we have to do the work with the member states.