FUTURE OF EU DEMOCRACY
31.12.2025
A written contribution by Kata Tüttő, President of the European Committee of the Regions
The title of this conference—The Price of Trust—captures the core challenge facing Europe today. Across the Union, citizens’ trust in democratic institutions is under strain. The reasons are well known: political polarisation, misinformation, economic anxiety, and a growing perception that decisions are taken far away and without sufficient understanding of local realities. There is also a deeper cultural layer: people everywhere feel overwhelmed by constant change, rising expectations, and declining predictability. This creates social anxiety and a sense of disconnection from politics. In such a context, the way the EU designs and governs its budget becomes a question of democratic trust: do citizens feel that Europe brings stability and resonance to their lives — or only more pressure?
In this sense, the debate on the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034 is not simply a technical negotiation about spending. It is a test of whether the European Union can strengthen trust through shared responsibility, transparency, and a budget that invests in democracy where it lives: in our regions, cities, towns, and villages.
1. The Budget as a Democratic Instrument
The EU budget is not a balance sheet; it is a democratic instrument. It allocates not only resources but also responsibility, voice, and visibility. Whether citizens feel Europe in their daily lives depends largely on how EU funds are designed, governed, and implemented.
For decades, Cohesion Policy has been one of the EU’s most trusted instruments precisely because it is built on partnership and shared management. It connects EU goals with local knowledge. It gives citizens something concrete they can see: a renovated school, a new tramline, a swimmable river, an innovation hub.
Local and regional leaders know their territories better than anyone else: their strengths, their vulnerabilities, the speed at which they can transform, and how much pressure they can realistically carry. They understand the local economy, the social fabric, the cultural patterns, and the hidden capacities for innovation and creativity. This is why EU investment lands better when shaped locally. It becomes visible in the concrete things people recognise as improvements in their own lives: public spaces that bring neighbours together, reliable public transport, clean air, drinkable water, good schools, libraries, healthcare centres, and community services that make everyday life work. These are not just infrastructure projects — they are investments in trust. They show citizens that institutions see them, understand them, and work for them.
This is why the current budget debate matters beyond financial architecture. If we change how funds are governed, we also change how democracy is experienced.
2. The Risk of Centralisation
The budget proposals on the table for 2027+ introduce a profound shift. By dumping the most important core policies—Cohesion and the Agricultural Policy—into a single national envelope, the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPP), the EU risks reducing regions and cities to mere beneficiaries. From co-designers to simple implementers. From long-term investment tools to a bag of money.
Centralisation may appear efficient in times of crisis, but its long-term effect is to weaken the social contract between institutions and citizens. When local and regional authorities are sidelined, Europe becomes less visible, and citizens feel more distant.
We also lose capacity. We lose muscles. Crisis mode may demand a sprint—but governing Europe is a marathon. We must survive the short term, but we must also build the long-term muscles of local leadership, partnership, and place-based intelligence. We need both kinds of strength.
The Committee of the Regions’ position is clear: democracy and legitimacy require partnership. Cities and regions implement roughly 70% of EU legislation and bear responsibility for climate adaptation, clean mobility, disaster response, housing, water management, and social services. They are not subcontractors. They are co-authors of Europe’s future.
3. Trust Relies on Fairness
Trust will wither where structural unfairness grows. Cohesion Policy has always been Europe’s main tool for reducing territorial, social, and economic disparities. It is not a social transfer. It is an investment strategy that makes the Single Market function. Without territorial balance, the Single Market itself becomes politically fragile.
The budget proposal guarantees ring-fenced support only for less developed regions. But Europe needs more than slowing down the widening of development gaps. All European regions are in transition — social, industrial, digital, and climate transition. Regions face ageing, industrial restructuring, water scarcity, climate extremes, and digital divides.
There are strong arguments that Cohesion Policy must support all regions in this transition — so that these transformations advance in line with our common European goals and ambitions.
4. The Real Trust Problem: A Mismatch Between Expectations and Resources
The next challenge is not only transparency, but also a growing mismatch between expectations and available resources — a mismatch that can erode trust at every level.
Citizens, NGOs, businesses, towns, and regions increasingly turn to the EU for solutions and funding. The demand for “more Europe” is real. But the EU budget remains just above 1% of EU GNI — far too small compared to the scale of the challenges.
At the same time, Member States do not agree on increasing common spending. As a result, disappointment is almost guaranteed. After the RRF ends, with a nationalised model and reduced visible cohesion support, many actors will knock on Brussels’ door — only to be sent back to their national governments. National governments, in turn, may shift responsibility upward and blame the EU for not solving problems that cannot be solved with 1% of GNI.
This is not fertile ground for trust. It creates frustration, blame games, unpredictability, and short-term thinking — all known to undermine cooperation.
Honesty and responsibility at all levels — acknowledging limits, clarifying responsibilities, confronting problems together — strengthen trust. Confusion, centralisation without consultation, and unclear accountability weaken it.
5. A Human-Scale Europe in a Moment of Social Anxiety
People trust what they can see and understand. They trust leaders who are close to them. They trust systems that give them a voice. This matters even more in a moment when many citizens feel socially and emotionally exhausted — by uncertainty, complexity, and constant change.
Europe earned its legitimacy through proximity: thousands of local projects that improved everyday life and generated confidence. The next MFF must not weaken this foundation. Centralisation increases distance. Decentralisation increases resonance, stability, and trust.
If we want citizens to believe in the Union, the Union must also believe in its regions and cities. Trust flows in both directions.
Conclusion
As President of the Committee of the Regions, I see the discussion about the next EU Budget as more than a financial negotiation. It is an opportunity for an honest conversation about our challenges, about responsibility and cooperation, and about reinforcing the democratic fabric of Europe by ensuring that responsibility, decision-making, and resources remain shared across all levels of governance.
A Union that decentralises trust, strengthens partnership, and invests in territorial fairness is a Union that can withstand political pressures, economic shocks, and rising extremism.
Kata Tüttő
Kata Tüttő chairs the European Committee of the Regions since February 2025 until summer of 2027. She is a city councillor (PES) of Budapest with responsibilities in areas such as public transport, waste management, and water.
