Subscribe
Ireland released its initial proposal for the next EU budget to resounding criticism. In Dublin’s attempts to appease everyone it has come under fire by all for making an unsatisfactory proposal. Irish politicians may not realise that their usual tricks in Leinster House won’t be tolerated at the European Union level. While holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the Irish government is held to a higher intellectual standard than it is incapable of delivering — as such, it is an absolute certainty that friction has emerged.
Ireland’s proposed 8 percent cut to the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2028-2034 has drawn ire from across the political spectrum in Europe, with frugal member states like Germany and Sweden disappointed that spending cuts have not gone deep enough, while the European Commission stands against the principle of reducing the budget at all. Most interestingly is that Ireland has chosen to retain controversial own resources tax packages which, at the expense of member states, could see independent tax revenue generation on goods within the bloc allocated to Brussels. This comes after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s summer visit to Dublin where he called for Ireland to bring forward a proposal which would satisfy Germany and other net-contributor countries.
Strangely, while own resources packages are supported by the Irish Presidency, their proposed budgetary cuts run into the global cooperation and competitiveness funding streams. Global cooperation funding, effectively including humanitarian groups and other forms of outreach and development support, is a core aspect of the Irish government’s domestic agenda. In fact, the Irish Aid annual report for 2025 boasted that Ireland was bucking the trend of international cuts to humanitarian aid. It is quite remarkable then, that Ireland seems to have read the European temperature on aid spending and put the sector onto the chopping block. Unfortunately, where Ireland failed to read Europe’s priorities is in its approach to competitiveness, which is set to take steep funding cuts in the Irish proposal. This is despite years of celebration around the Draghi Report and the Letta Report peddled as gospels of a new European economic resurgence; years in which the Irish government has happily gone along with the rhetoric of their continental counterparts.
With Ireland proposing a roughly €141 billion cut in an attempt to please all parties involved, the only outcome Dublin now faces is a complete loss in European confidence in the Irish Presidency. Junior Minister Thomas Byrne, the Irish official responsible for managing much of Ireland’s activities during this period, has supported the negotiating box opened by the Irish government.
Immediately identifiable by any Irish observer, is that the traditionally important sectors of the cohesion, agriculture and fisheries fund took the smallest of all cuts proposed. With only a 3 percent proposed cut compared to the 13 percent cut to competitiveness, research and defence, the Irish government’s national priorities are on clear display. This is despite the fact Irish officials spent the preparatory period arguing that they could not advocate for national interests throughout the Presidency, with a duty to act as an honest broker while chairing discussions. While such assertions are normal for any government to make while holding the chair, it is still quite surprising that Ireland’s interests are so brazenly on display here.
Consider for instance that frugal member states, like Germany, are interested in a cut of hundreds of billions of euros. The Irish cuts do not deliver that in scale or substance, but they do indicate German requests were at least listened to. The issue is that Ireland proposed cuts to the competitiveness and defence sectors which Germany and many others stand to benefit from.
The absurdity of the Irish budget went down like a lead balloon with national governments. The Dutch Finance Minister said that the Netherlands would not accept the budget, and that “at this rate, there will be no deal by the end of the year.” The Swedish Minister for EU Affairs called the Irish proposal “unreasonable” and the Commission has voiced its disapproval as well.
So poorly received has the Irish negotiating box been, that a joint statement of the leaders of the EPP, S&D, Renew Europe and the Greens communicated their “utmost dismay” with the budget tabled by the Irish Presidency.
Furthermore, the Vice Chair of the EPP personally criticised the Irish government, saying that “after three months, the Irish Presidency has delivered little progress, no meaningful new solutions and a weaker budget.” Such comments should be especially embarrassing for Fine Gael, a member of the EPP who has broken frequently from the group’s ethos. Despite being part of a Christian Democrat grouping like the EPP, Fine Gael’s political priorities lean much more towards the social democracy of the S&D.
Speaking to Politico, one EU diplomat said the Irish proposal was “not even close to a landing zone.” The total dissatisfaction with Ireland’s budget suggestions should be a cause for warning in Dublin, however Irish officials including An Taoiseach himself have doubled down on the assertion that their negotiating box is merely a starting point for further discussion. The goal of a first proposition would be to create something close to a compromise which grants all parties something which is crucial to their interests. Rather than finding that middle-ground, Ireland has delivered a cop-out budget with a carve out for the agricultural subsidies which keep its politically influential farmers content.
The accusation against Ireland for proposing something akin to “financial La La Land” is frankly accurate. In the classical analysis of qui bono this budget is not to the interest of anyone. Europeans might find this strange, but Irish people will not. For decades Irish politicians have become addicted to being seen to act while not delivering at all. It is a strange mechanism by which they circumvent accountability for decision-making and the inevitable failures of their policy by simply never introducing a serious measure to begin with.
So for other member states, the key take away from the Irish budget should not be that Ireland has cut out protections for its agriculture sector in the proposal, though it certainly has done so. The real observation is that they are conducting the same ritualistic aversion to decision which governs their policymaking at home. For a government which has made so much of a point to the Irish public about the importance of being an honest broker, they have unsurprisingly not lived up to the moniker. Instead one might characterise the Irish Presidency as an absent broker: a person with responsibility for a decision which they would rather not make, who claims to deliver but has no intention of ever doing so.
As Ireland continues the remainder of its Presidency, there are likely to be further points of friction and disappointment from our European partners. The displays of inadequacy coming from the Irish government should come as a warning sign to the rest of the continent that Ireland, unfortunately, is not a reliable partner. It is a regrettable casualty of this disastrous EU Presidency that Ireland has likely torched its diplomatic reputation across the bloc, as people can only ask themselves the question: how can they be this stupid? The Irish public have thought that on many occasions, but it does not stop them from voting the same unreliable officials into high office. For as long as Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are in power, the European Union would be wise to treat them like the pushovers they are.