Siegfried Mureșan, MEP (EPP): "Either we tax Elon Musk or we cut funding for Spanish farmers"

The European Union budget rarely sparks public conversation outside Brussels, but too many concrete things depend on it: farmers, regions, fishers, infrastructure, security, innovation or students. That is why the negotiation of the next Multiannual Financial Framework is not just a technical discussion between institutions, but a test of what Europe wants to be over the next seven years. As MEP Siegfried Mureșan puts it, "Europe has to do more, and we cannot do more with a smaller budget".

Mureșan, a member of the European People’s Party and one of the European Parliament’s co-rapporteurs in this negotiation, argues that the Commission is right to reinforce competitiveness, research, innovation and security, but wrong to weaken traditional policies. His point is that "there is no contradiction between competitiveness and cohesion". For him, cohesion must evolve, fund more green, digital, energy-related or even dual civil and military use projects, but without losing its territorial basis or the role of the regions.

The conversation also addresses how to pay for all this. Mureșan rules out the idea that Member States will be willing to drastically increase their contributions and looks instead to "own resources", including a levy on tech giants. On common debt, however, he is much more cautious. NextGenerationEU continues to weigh on European accounts and, he recalls, "If you accumulate too much debt, you end up paying financial markets instead of investing in hospitals, energy grid upgrades, or farmers."



Good morning, Mr. Mureșan, and thank you for taking the time to talk about the new European Union budget. My first question is: what are the main issues with the Commission’s proposal regarding the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)?

We are now working to draft the budget of the European Union for the next seven years. The budget is always organized in seven-year periods because we need long-term predictability. Beneficiaries of EU funds should know how much money is coming, under what conditions, and in which areas. Plus, large infrastructure projects require multiannual planning: you cannot build a highway in a single year. This is why we always plan for seven years.

These cycles are important because they lay bare the real priorities of the European Union. It is clear now that, for the coming years, the priorities will be security and defense on one hand, and a strong, competitive economy fit for the digital age and artificial intelligence on the other. These are the new priorities.

In parallel, the traditional priorities of the European Union —the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which funds farmers and rural development, and Cohesion Policy— have proven their value and importance over time, and they must continue. Cohesion Policy has become the main investment tool of the European Union. So much infrastructure was built exactly from this Cohesion Policy in Spain and other Member States.

So, we are currently in this process. The European Commission, which is the executive branch of Europe, has presented a draft budget project. In this project, they propose more money for competitiveness, research, innovation and security. This is correct, and we support it as a Parliament.

However, they also proposed to weaken the Common Agricultural Policy and Cohesion Policy, reducing funding for farmers and regions. We think this is wrong, we do not support it, and we are trying to correct it. Three weeks ago, we adopted the official position of the European Parliament, stating that the Commission’s draft budget is insufficient. We want to increase it by 10% so that there is enough money for farmers and regions as well.

"We do not want Madrid and Brussels to decide for every region in Spain. We want decisions made close to the citizens, so we propose to strengthen agriculture and Cohesion Policy"

We want the role of the regions to be binding and obligatory. We want EU funds to be managed and decided at the regional and local levels because that is closer to the citizens. The regions know best where money is needed. We do not want Brussels and national capitals to decide politically where the money goes. We do not want Madrid and Brussels to decide for every region in Spain. We want decisions made close to the citizens, so we propose to strengthen agriculture and Cohesion Policy.

Two more things are vital for Spain. The European Commission proposed a drastic cut to fisheries policy, dropping funding from €6 billion in the current budget to just €2 billion in the next one. That would be unacceptable. As a Parliament, we absolutely reject this. We argue that we need €7 billion for fishers in the next budget. Fishers contribute to food security just like farmers do; they are a vital part of our economy and we must support them. As one of the Parliament’s two co-rapporteurs, I fought hard for this.

The second crucial subject for Spain is the outermost regions. In the current budget, there is a special fund for the outermost regions: the islands of Spain and Portugal, such as the Azores and Madeira, and France’s overseas regions. The European Commission proposed to eliminate this special program, telling countries like Spain, Portugal and France that if they want to support these regions, they should do it out of their own standard cohesion funds.

I think this is a mistake. Outermost regions are essential to the whole European Union, particularly in this current geopolitical context, where they are vital for our security. This is why the European Parliament proposes to recreate the special program for these regions and allocate €7 billion to it. In the current budget, there were €6 billion; a bit more is needed so that funding areas like the Canary Islands does not become an unfair burden for the Spanish government. All of Europe should contribute to this, and that is what we fought for in Parliament’s position, managing to secure the support of the majority of MEPs.
 
Let me ask you how you plan to secure this funding. We have options like common debt or own resources. What avenues are you exploring in that regard?

Yes, Europe has to do more, and we cannot do more with a smaller budget. That is a fantasy; it simply won’t work in practice. So it is clear that the budget has to increase, but of course, that increase must be responsible and moderate. We cannot simply spend more in every single area.

"It is very difficult to tell voters: 'Look, we are paying more from our national budgets to Europe'. A major increase in national contributions is unrealistic"

There are two ways to increase it. The first possibility is that every Member State pays more into the EU budget. Personally, I don’t think this will happen because many Member States are dealing with massive deficits and heavy debt. Politically, the will isn’t there, and it is very difficult to tell voters: "Look, we are paying more from our national budgets to Europe". A major increase in national contributions is unrealistic.

So that leaves the second possibility: introducing so-called "own resources" of revenue for the European Union, which would make the Union’s budget far more predictable, transparent, automatic and objective. As the European Parliament, we have three ideas, one of which is much larger and more significant than the others.

The first idea is to introduce an own resource based on taxing global tech giants.

Which is definitely not going to be easy.

You are absolutely right. I will come back to that point. The second is a digital contribution based on profits made from cryptocurrencies. And the third is an own resource based on online gaming and gambling.

The digital levy —or digital tax— would be the largest revenue generator. But you are completely right; I am not naive. It will affect American digital corporations, and in a transatlantic context, it will not be easy to implement. However, the largest tech giants in the world enjoy access to our single market of almost 500 million consumers. They make billions of dollars here, yet they don’t pay a single euro in tax to the EU. That is deeply unfair.

"It is unfair that global corporations profit massively from our market without contributing a single penny"

The choice we face is simple: either we cut funding for Spanish farmers, Spanish regions and communities all across Europe —meaning we slash money for agriculture, regional development, innovation, energy and security— or we tax Elon Musk. Everyone can weigh the options, but I would much prefer that we don’t penalize our own enterprises, farmers and regions, and instead find a structural solution. It is unfair that global corporations profit massively from our market without contributing a single penny. If we let this continue while cutting funds for European beneficiaries, it would be a severe mistake. These giants should pay for access to the European market.

There is an ongoing debate regarding budget priorities, specifically centered around whether cohesion or competitiveness is more important. While we might not have to choose one over the other, many regions are deeply concerned about the Commission’s proposal for Cohesion Policy. It seems the Commission prefers to invest heavily in competitiveness. What is your take on this debate?

Yes, that’s a critical point. Investing more in competitiveness is necessary and correct, but cohesion is a massive part of that equation; it is not a burden. The European Commission proposed to reduce Cohesion Policy and guarantee funding only to the least developed regions in Europe. We believe that is a mistake; funding must be guaranteed to all types of regions, and the role of local government must be mandatory.

"There is no contradiction between competitiveness and cohesion. Cohesion Policy just needs to evolve, as it has done in recent years"

We have worked closely with the European Commission over the last few months, and they have shifted their stance somewhat, so we’ve made progress. But it’s still not enough. We need a binding commitment to the regions, a clear Cohesion Policy with dedicated funding, and a solid legal base so that beneficiaries have regulatory certainty for the full seven years. Of course, within Cohesion Policy, we need flexibility. If unexpected crises hit —like the energy crisis we just faced— we must be able to fund new types of projects dynamically.

My point is that there is no contradiction between competitiveness and cohesion. Cohesion Policy just needs to evolve, as it has done in recent years by funding more green, environmental, energy-efficient and digital projects. Moving forward, the link between Cohesion Policy and the new budget priorities must be explicitly clear. Most future cohesion projects will naturally have to contribute to economic competitiveness. We build a highway because it improves competitiveness. We invest in energy projects because they lower energy prices and make our economy more competitive.

Therefore, we should design a future-oriented Cohesion Policy alongside governments, the Commission, the Parliament and the regions. It needs to serve our overarching new objectives: competitiveness and security. For example, we can even fund military mobility through Cohesion Policy, supporting projects that have a dual civil and military use. Cohesion is not an outdated policy of the past; it is a vital investment for the future.
 
On that note, what do you think about the Commission’s rumored plan to eliminate DG REGIO?

Look, I don’t know what they are planning behind closed doors. For context, the European Commission is divided into several Directorates-General, for agriculture, budget, and so on. One of them is for regional policy, DG REGIO, and I am also reading reports in the press that the Commission wants to dissolve it. I can tell you directly that nobody has consulted us in the European Parliament on this.

I can imagine.

To be fair, we don’t consult the Commission when we organize our own internal parliamentary structures either; the executive branch decides its organization, and the Parliament decides theirs. However, eliminating that Directorate-General at the European level would send a terrible signal to the regions, effectively telling them they are no longer important.

I don’t know what their exact rationale would be, as I’ve only read the public reports, but I can confirm there has been zero discussion on this subject with MEPs.

As we mentioned earlier, I want to ask you about common debt. What is your view on it? For instance, figures like Friedrich Merz seem to be strictly against the idea.

Common debt might sound like an attractive idea on paper, but we are seeing significant risks at the European level. Let me be completely concrete and honest with your readers. Immediately after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we launched the largest economic support package in European history: NextGenerationEU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility. This totaled €700 billion —half in loans and half in grants for Member States.

This was only possible because we granted the European Commission permission to issue common debt. The agreement at the time was that we were facing an unprecedented, unique crisis. The economy was frozen, we were in lockdown, and countries like Spain and Italy were suffering immensely. We agreed that solidarity is core to what we are as a European Union, so it was the right move. I was actually one of the three co-rapporteurs in the European Parliament responsible for setting up the Recovery and Resilience Facility. We did it, and it was the correct response.

However, to do it, we had to take on massive debt —nearly €700 billion— which now has to be paid back. And right now, it is still not entirely clear who is paying it back and how.

In fact, that is exactly one of the biggest challenges for the budget.

Exactly. It is not clear how it will be repaid. The loan portion of the Recovery and Resilience Facility is straightforward: those are credits given to Member States, and those governments pay the Commission back directly. But €350 billion of that package was given as grants, and we have to pay interest on that money every single year. That is the real problem.

"If you accumulate too much debt, you end up paying financial markets instead of investing in hospitals, energy grid upgrades or farmers"

As long as the repayment mechanism remains unclarified, this poses a severe risk to the regular EU budget because, for the time being, the interest has to be carved out of our annual operating funds. We don’t even start principal reimbursement until 2028, but we’ve been paying interest since 2022. Initially, the interest was manageable: €1 billion the first year, €2 billion the second, then €4 billion. This year, it has spiked to €8 billion. That is €8 billion leaving the EU budget every year purely for interest.

Taking on debt is easy; paying it back is the hard part, and interest is a heavy burden. If you accumulate too much debt, you end up paying financial markets instead of investing in hospitals, energy grid upgrades or farmers. I believe issuing additional common debt at the European level will be politically impossible until we have fully resolved the repayment framework for NextGenerationEU. As I noted, it risks eating the budget alive. Right now, we pay €8 billion in interest annually. After 2028, we must begin principal repayments of €25 billion every single year. That represents roughly 15% of the total EU budget.

So we face a harsh reality: either we slash the European budget by 15%, or Member States dramatically increase their national contributions —which they don’t have the money or political will to do—, or we make real progress on "own resources" to generate new revenue streams to cover our debts. Until we settle how to pay back what we already owe, more common debt is off the table.
 
Looking ahead to 2027, we will see major elections across Europe: in Spain, France, Poland and Italy. Is it worrying to have so many critical elections happening when the EU budget hasn’t yet been negotiated or approved?

Yes, I think it will be exceptionally difficult to finalize a seven-year European budget while four of our five largest Member States are in the middle of intense political campaigns. The new budget must enter into force on January 1st, 2028. The ideal scenario is to reach an agreement by the end of this year, 2026. If we close it within that timeframe, national governments, regional authorities and private beneficiaries will have a full year to set up administrative frameworks, prepare programs and ensure a smooth rollout. Then, on day one of 2028, the money flows immediately and yields results.

If we fail to agree by the end of 2026, the presidential election in France and parliamentary elections in Spain, Italy and Poland will likely freeze all progress throughout 2027. We would end up gridlocked, only striking a rushed deal in December 2027. Nothing would be prepared for January 2028, leading to massive funding delays, which would be damaging for everyone.

If I could follow up on that point: take someone like Giorgia Meloni, for example. It might be politically risky for her to back a European budget right before an election. She might worry that approving it beforehand could create electoral problems at home.

Any prime minister will have immense difficulty defending a bad budget to their voters, but it is very easy for a prime minister to support a budget that is strong and fair. If the budget is too small and forces cuts on local farmers, regional infrastructure or students, then yes, that prime minister has a serious electoral problem. However, if we deliver a budget that is sufficient, realistic and supportive, it becomes excellent news for any leader running for re-election.

As a member of the EPP, is it difficult for you to challenge a European Commission that is heavily made up of members from your own political family?

Look, we must never forget the fundamental duty of members of Parliament: to oversee and hold the executive accountable. At the European level, the Commission answers directly to the Parliament. You should never expect the Parliament and the Commission to agree on absolutely everything; that isn’t how democracy works.

What we need are shared core objectives, and I believe those common goals absolutely exist between the Commission and the Parliament right now. We both want to bolster security, enhance competitiveness and aggressively cut bureaucratic red tape during this mandate. On the big picture, we are aligned. On the day-to-day implementation and specific funding lines, we debate intensely —sometimes strictly at odds—, but we always negotiate to find common European solutions. That is exactly what Europe is about.

Thank you.