The future of the European Union has also made its way into the campaign for the general elections of 29 November. The multiannual financial framework for the period 2028-2034, the management of migration and the European response to the war in Ukraine have focused the first European-key electoral debate organized by Demócrata, held in the European Parliament, in Brussels.
The meeting brought together Tono López-Istúriz, representing the Partido Popular; Sandra Gómez, from the PSOE; Hermann Tertsch, of Vox, and Estrella Galán, of Sumar. The four representatives confronted their positions on the main decisions the Union will have to face during the coming years, in a debate moderated by Álvaro Villarroel, Demócrata’s correspondent in Brussels.
The interventions have revealed deep differences on the model of European integration, the distribution of Community resources, border control and the degree of autonomy that the EU must develop in matters of security and defense. Three areas that, moreover, will condition the position that Spain will maintain in Community negotiations in the next legislature.
The European budget faces traditional priorities and new investments
The next multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2028-2034 has been one of the main points of friction. The proposal from the European Commission has opened a negotiation over the allocation of resources between the Union’s traditional policies —especially the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and cohesion funds— and the new Community priorities, such as competitiveness, defense and strategic autonomy.
López-Istúriz has argued that agriculture and cohesion must retain a central role in the European budget. The Popular Party representative has asserted the importance of direct CAP aid and of structural funds that, in his view, must continue to be managed with the participation of the autonomous communities. At the same time, he has recognized the need to strengthen other items, including those for defense, education, housing and opportunities for young people.
The PP MEP has placed competitiveness among the priorities the Union must address, although he has warned of the difficulty of fitting the new budgetary needs without compromising the European social model. The discussion, therefore, is not limited to how much money the EU should spend, but also to how to distribute it among policies competing for limited resources.
From the PSOE, Sandra Gómez has questioned the Commission’s initial proposal for considering that it envisages cuts in two of the main Community policies: the CAP and cohesion. The Socialist representative has argued that the budget must maintain its capacity to reduce territorial inequalities and respond to crisis situations, and she has drawn on experience with the dana to illustrate the importance of having solidarity and reconstruction mechanisms.
Gómez has also called for greater capacity for the Union’s own financing. In this regard, she has defended the creation of new own resources that would make it possible to expand the Community budget without shifting the entire burden to national contributions. Among the formulas she has put forward are levies linked to large digital platforms, online betting, and operations with cryptoassets.
Estrella Galán has agreed on the need to review European income, but she has placed emphasis on the impact that a reduction in the funds earmarked for social and territorial policies would have. The Sumar representative has warned of the risk of concentrating different items into a single fund which, in her view, could weaken the capacity of States and regions to meet their specific needs.
Galán has rejected that strengthening competitiveness be proposed at the expense of labor rights, environmental protection, or social safeguards. She has also defended a review of taxation so that large companies contribute in a more balanced way to financing public policies.
Hermann Tertsch’s position has marked a deeper distance from the European Union’s budgetary and regulatory model. The Vox representative has argued that Europe suffers from an excess of regulation that harms its ability to compete with other economic powers. Accordingly, he has called for a reduction in regulatory burdens and a review of spending priorities before proposing new taxes or increasing citizens’ contributions.
The debate over own resources has again highlighted the differences between the blocs. While Gómez has defended new sources of income linked to digital and financial economic activities, Tertsch has rejected increasing the tax burden and has called for reviewing first the destination of the funds. López-Istúriz, for his part, has recalled the role of national governments in negotiating the budget within the Council, without specifying an alternative financing formula.
Migration: from the European pact to the outsourcing of borders
Migration policy has constituted the second major axis of confrontation. The implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, control of external borders, returns, and cooperation with third countries have made it possible to verify the differences between those who prioritize strengthening control mechanisms and those who call for expanding legal pathways for entry and guarantees of protection.
Galán has questioned the approach with which the Union is developing its migration policy and has considered that the European pact was born «mortally wounded». The Sumar representative has criticized that the Community institutions have placed expulsions and border control at the center of their strategy, while, in her view, legal and secure pathways to access European territory have not been developed sufficiently.
Along those lines, she has defended the expansion of visas, resettlement mechanisms, and other formulas for regular migration. She has also questioned agreements with third countries when there are not sufficient guarantees to protect the rights of migrant people, with special attention to the outsourcing of European responsibilities to countries such as Morocco.
Tertsch has defended a policy of greater firmness in border control. The Vox representative has called for reviewing how the asylum system works and has linked the management of migration flows to preserving social cohesion. In addition, he has raised the “reemigration” of people who are in an irregular situation, a position that he has placed at the center of his intervention.
Sandra Gómez has rejected addressing migration exclusively from an economic or utilitarian perspective. The Socialist representative has defended labor integration and regularization as instruments to respond to the needs of the labor market and guarantee the rights of migrant people. She has also questioned agreements with third countries when, in her view, they do not incorporate sufficient safeguards.
The PSOE’s position has sought to combine the management of migration flows with a defense of fundamental rights and integration mechanisms. Gómez has insisted that migration policy cannot be reduced to a discussion about expulsions and has brought into the debate the situation of especially vulnerable groups, as well as the difficulties that cooperation with certain regimes poses.
López-Istúriz has defended the need to distinguish between those who need international protection and those who do not meet the requirements to remain on European territory. The Popular Party representative has called for more effective border management and greater use of the capabilities of Community agencies such as Frontex and Europol.
In relation to the migration pressure on Spain, he has questioned the Government’s actions and has maintained that the available European instruments have not been used sufficiently. He has also recalled that these agencies’ intervention depends on the requests and cooperation of the Member States, a circumstance that conditions their operational deployment.
The four interventions have thus reflected a debate that goes beyond the technical implementation of the migration pact. The underlying issue lies in the balance between border control, external cooperation, international protection and legal pathways for access, areas in which the parties maintain clearly differentiated proposals.
Ukraine and defense: support for Kyiv and differences over European autonomy
The war in Ukraine has completed the three major blocks of the debate. The continuity of European support for Kyiv, the reinforcement of military capabilities, and the transatlantic relationship have faced different visions about the role that the Union must play in the new security scenario.
López-Istúriz has argued that Europe must maintain its military and financial backing for Ukraine until a peace is reached that makes it possible to guarantee its security. The PP representative has placed support for Kyiv within the framework of defending sovereignty and international order, although he has also warned about the risks associated with the circulation of armaments and their possible diversion toward criminal networks.
As for Ukraine’s possible accession to the European Union, he has argued that the process must be developed in accordance with the criteria established for any candidate country. Political support for Kyiv, therefore, should not result in a change to the enlargement conditions.
Gómez has argued for moving toward a European defense policy with greater common financing instruments and economies of scale. The Socialist representative has considered it necessary to reinforce the Union’s capabilities, but has questioned that an increase in military spending becomes an automatic obligation to meet the demands of the United States.
The PSOE’s intervention has linked European security to the need to reduce strategic dependencies and maintain support for Ukraine. Gómez has argued that aid to Kyiv helps to protect the civilian population and has criticized Donald Trump’s positions on Russia and the energy relationship with Moscow.
Tertsch has also defended maintaining support for Ukraine, although he has placed the transatlantic relationship at the center of his approach. The Vox representative has argued that European security continues to depend to a large extent on the alliance with the United States and has questioned whether the Union can build a sufficient deterrence capability outside Washington.
In that context, he has criticized Spanish energy policy and imports of Russian gas, which he has used to challenge the Government’s consistency in its position toward Moscow. His intervention has advocated for greater European military strength, but without disconnecting it from the American security umbrella.
Galán, for his part, has questioned that strengthening the defense is financed through cuts to other Community policies. The Sumar representative has warned that security cannot become an argument to weaken social funds, cohesion, or environmental policies.
The MEP has defended a diplomatic solution that allows achieving a “just and lasting peace” and has called for Russia to assume the costs of the reconstruction of Ukraine. Her position has emphasized the need to combine the response to Russian aggression with a political strategy that prevents the increase in military spending from displacing other European priorities.
The next Government in the face of a decisive European agenda
In the final stretch, the four participants have summarized the priorities which, in their view, Spain should defend in the European Union during the next legislature. The interventions have once again reflected differences over the integration model, the scope of Community competences, and the relationship between national policies and shared decisions.
Galán has claimed a Europe focused on social rights, territorial cohesion, and environmental protection. Tertsch has argued for a more limited Union, based on the principle of subsidiarity, the priority of the States, and a reduction in Community regulation. Gómez has called for the social-democratic model and the defense of freedoms and public services. López-Istúriz has insisted on the need for Spain to assume its responsibilities in the European project and contribute to strengthening the continent’s security, while maintaining cooperation with the United States.
The debate has made clear that the elections of November 29 will not only determine the composition of the next Government, but also the direction that Spain will defend in some of the Union’s most relevant negotiations. The budget for 2028-2034, the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, and the response to the war in Ukraine will force the new Executive to set positions with its Community partners.
The differences set out in Brussels, in the end, anticipate a discussion that will continue in European institutions over the next few years. The financing of common priorities, the balance between control and protection in migration matters, and the degree of strategic autonomy of the Union will be some of the decisions that will measure the capacity of Spanish parties to move their national proposals onto the Community agenda.