Six of the countries that pay for the EU seven-year Multiannual Financial Framework budget (MFF) want the next one cut by hundreds of billions of euros.

Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden said in a joint statement released by the German government on August 27 that the European Commission's proposal for the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework "of nearly €2 trillion needs to be reduced by several hundred billion Euros in a balanced manner", adding that "all headings should contribute to such reductions".

The Commission's proposal totals €1.76 trillion ($2.05tn) in current prices. That budget also includes €89bn for Ukraine’s reconstruction against the World Bank’s estimate that the war has done $589bn worth of total economic damage of which just under $200bn is physical damage. Presumably, any further cuts would further reduce Ukraine’s allocation.

As IntelliNews reported, Russia’s economy is hurting, but so is everyone else’s. An increasingly dysfunctional European economy can no longer afford the Ukraine war, due to the boomerang effects of sanctions and the elevate price of energy since cheap Russian gas supplies were cut off. Germany in particular has been grappling with a rapid deindustrialisation that is hollowing out its once proud manufacturing and export-driven economy.

Every one of the six is a net contributor to the EU budget. This next MFF expanded budget was supposed to fund enlargement, the ReArm defence spending and Ukraine reconstruction simultaneously.

The six have also shut down the one option that could raise large amounts of fresh capital: "New common borrowing is not the solution to our budgetary challenges and is no alternative to structural reforms," the statement said - a direct shot at the joint-debt mechanism that funded the pandemic recovery fund that has just expired but that the Commission has been reluctant to rule out for the next cycle. So far Russia has been funding its war in Ukraine with cash, while Europe is increasingly funding its support for Ukraine with debt.

The six back concluding negotiations in 2026 and want the EU "to make clear choices and reprioritize within the budget". They call for a "holistic assessment of the payment flows" given the level of outstanding payment commitments under the current framework and the transfer mechanisms sitting outside it, say the institutions should absorb their workload "within the existing staff levels", and insist that "excessive net imbalances must be corrected" - the rebate argument, in its usual coded form.

What they want the money spent on is an "efficient, socially responsible and business-friendly legislative and regulatory framework" that prioritises "the successful, swift and green transformation of our economies, in particular by accelerating planning and permitting procedures".

The candidate countries of Central and Southeast Europe are the ones with most to lose. Cohesion funds and agriculture are the two largest largesse’s EU membership offers and the two that a new member states draw on first. "All headings should contribute" suggests that the six intend to see these distributions cut.

Sweden and Poland are on opposite sides of this and were on the same side of a different letter the same day, arguing that the €90bn Ukraine loan will not be enough. Both positions are affordable at once only if the money comes from Russia's immobilised assets rather than from national contributions, which is rather the point.