Skip to content

Megalomanic EU Budget Plan: Militarization and Cuts to Industry and Farmers

The German government has rejected a draft for the European Union’s next budget for 2028-2034. The increase from an originally planned €1.2 trillion to €2.0 trillion by the EU Commission is “not acceptable at a time when all member states are making considerable efforts to consolidate their national budgets,” said German government spokesman Stefan Kornelius in Berlin on the evening of July 16. “We will therefore not be able to accept the Commission’s proposal.”

In a fit of fiscal madness oblivious to the devastating consequences it would have, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had previously announced significant additional spending in the long-term EU budget in order to pay for, primarily, additional investments in security and defense. The Commission proposes new levies on bigger industrial companies to finance the €800 billion increase—a proposal categorically rejected by companies.

Business associations had already warned of new levies in advance. The German automotive industry association VDA said that companies in Germany and Europe were in an extremely difficult economic situation. “Any tax increase or the introduction of additional levies is therefore out of the question—both at national and European level,” said President Hildegard Müller. A tax levied regardless of profit would have to be classified as particularly damaging to growth—it would weaken the competitiveness of companies in the EU.

The Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) also stated in advance that higher charges would be “completely the wrong signal.” Companies need a tailwind, not additional taxes, said DIHK Managing Director Helena Melnikov, pointing to estimates that 50,000 companies would be affected across Europe and 20,000 in Germany. Melnikov says: “We can only warn against this initiative.”

The governments of France, Germany, Italy, and Poland, and their farmers, also rejected EU plans to restructure funds for the agricultural sector, which would imply substantial cuts, as unacceptable.