The Brussels summit last week drew global attention when 26 EU member states agreed to open accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova, a move that sparked surprise as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban reportedly left the room during the discussion—leading to perceptions of a unanimous decision on this point.
Yet Orban later blocked an amendment to the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework, which includes a four-year aid package for Ukraine through 2027.
Aid for Ukraine, but with three new EU taxes
The package, while expanding EU budget expenditures by 66 billion euros through 2027, also introduces three new EU revenue streams: a 25% share of ETS revenues redirected to the EU budget, the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and a corporate tax on the profits of transnational firms. These changes were embedded in the budget amendment accompanying the Ukraine package, seen by some as a way to galvanize support for additional aid while raising taxes—an approach that critics say pressures those wary of new levies.
One proposed remedy is to separate the two issues, allowing the European Parliament to vote separately on each item. Reports show MEPs from the ruling majority backing both reports, while United Right MEPs abstained on the budget amendment and opposed the new taxes.
Ask for another 66 billion euros
In June, the European Commission proposed additional financing of 66 billion euros to be mobilized over four years. The Commission projected roughly 17 billion euros in subsidies for Ukraine, with total support expected around 50 billion euros, comprised mainly of 33 billion euros in loans. An estimated 15 billion euros would cover migration-related costs, another 15 billion aimed at broader migration needs, 10 billion to support existing investment funds, 2 billion to cushion inflation, 3 billion for a flexibility mechanism, and about 19 billion euros in interest costs. The plan also earmarked 0 euros for frontline countries hosting large refugee populations, while the 19 billion euros in interest costs is a point of contention for Poland, given its two-year pause on KPO funds amid political gridlock.
New taxes are unfair to less wealthy countries
Introducing three new EU revenue streams—notably the transportation of tax sovereignty to Brussels—poses a burden on less prosperous members. The current system ties EU budget contributions to gross national income (GNI), which places relatively wealthier nations at a higher payment burden even after reductions. Replacing this model with EU-level taxes—especially environmental ones—could disproportionately affect poorer member states like Poland, which rely more heavily on coal energy and slower energy transitions. Poland has, in turn, supported both migrating 25% of ETS revenues to the EU budget and adopting the CBAM, along with delaying the proposed corporate tax on transnational profits. The Commission projects these new sources could yield about 17 billion euros per year in 2026-2030, with roughly 12 billion from ETS, 1 billion from CBAM, and 4 billion from corporate taxes. By any reasonable estimate, the bulk of these revenues would come from countries undergoing energy transformation, including Poland.
Tusk’s silent consent
The reported tacit approval by Prime Minister Tusk to these new tax arrangements has provoked criticism, viewed as a substantial shift of tax sovereignty toward the EU level. It also suggests broad acceptance of a Second Basket of own resources to be presented by the Commission. The move is seen by critics as elevating the EU budget’s leverage relative to its less affluent peers, all while a degree of media opacity remains, with limited coverage from major outlets. Critics warn that such steps may signal a push toward a more centralized EU governance model.
Source: wPolityce