Approximately every seven years, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament receive a proposal for the EU’s future multiannual budget. The sender is the European Commission, which in its proposal also takes into account the preferences of a wide array of stakeholders, including NGOs, civil society organizations and various public authorities. The resulting document, called the multiannual financial framework (MFF), initiates a policy process that eventually ends with the Council and the European Parliament approving the multiannual budget.

Voter’s agendas suggest unemployment remains the most pressing problem, while immigration is becoming more important compared to previous elections. The polarisation of the issue of immigration played a central role in this year’s electoral campaign and is reflected in the public’s attitude towards the EU.

Notions such as ‘leadership’ or ‘hegemony’ suggest that without a strong Germany to enforce the Eurozone’s fiscal restrictions, the implementation of difficult albeit necessary structural reforms would not be successful at preserving the Euro. However, is it justified to view Germany as a leading power during the Eurozone crisis? Moreover, what does the new German government mean for the Eurozone’s ambitious plans for deeper economic integration?

What emerged from the Tripartite Social Summit 2018 is a general convergence around the Social Fairness Package. Nevertheless, the difficulties on the horizon are manifold.

Politicians still tend to support consensual solutions to the problems of EU economy. However, a polarization is emerging across countries and, above all, across parties. Moreover, being supportive of some kind of burden sharing does not necessarily mean being ready to delegate the economic policies to the EU institutions.