Six of the EU’s biggest net contributors are demanding major cuts to the Union’s next seven-year budget.

Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden want the European Commission’s proposed budget of almost €2 trillion for 2028–2034 reduced by several hundred billion euros. Germany had previously pushed for roughly €400 billion in cuts.

There is a real argument for spending discipline. National governments are under pressure, public debt is high, and taxpayers are entitled to ask whether EU money is being used well.

The same six governments say Europe needs to spend more on defence, competitiveness, AI, and what they call sovereignty. They want Europe to become better able to protect itself, compete with the US and China, control its borders and respond to crises. Yet they also want every part of the proposed EU budget to contribute to cuts and reject new joint EU borrowing. That is where the debate becomes more serious than a dispute over numbers.

Europe cannot keep adding responsibilities at EU level while refusing to decide how those responsibilities will be paid for. Defence costs money. Industrial policy costs money. Energy infrastructure, technology, borders and research all cost money.

The Commission’s proposal is already only about 1.26% of EU gross national income over the seven-year period. Whether €2 trillion is the right figure is open to debate. But governments asking for a smaller budget should also explain clearly which ambitions they are prepared to reduce.

Cutting waste is sensible. Demanding greater European capacity while cutting the resources needed to build it is much harder to defend.

Europe needs an honest choice: decide what should be done together, then decide what governments are actually willing to pay for it.