Déchiffrer 2027

FREN

Europe and defence, David Lisnard

Place in the European Union: Treaty for the democratisation of Europe, competences redistributed

Direction of change: change of another kind, or uncertain direction, compared with current law.

The lever. Relationship with the European treaties and rules: deepening, renegotiation, primacy of national law, exit. Direction rule: ↑ deeper European integration.

« La négociation d’un Traité de démocratisation de l’Europe permettra de revoir la répartition des compétences »1

Translation by the editorsThe negotiation of a Treaty for the democratisation of Europe will make it possible to review the distribution of competences

Encoding

No cost-schedule parameter for this position: see the costing for the reason.

Costing

Announced by the candidate

not announced

The programme does not cost this measure.

Published costings

none

No external costing of this position recorded to date.

Our calculation

not costed

Negotiation of a treaty on the division of competences, with no budgetary measure: nothing to cost.

Current law, sources and limits of the cost schedule

Current law. Constitution, art. 88-1 (participation in the EU); TEU and TFEU treaties; new European fiscal rules of 2024. Levy on revenue for the EU: €28.44bn in the finance act for 2026 (art. 143; €28.8bn in the initial bill), compared with €23.1bn in 2025. France's share of EU financing: 17.2% in 2024. Net accounting balance: -€7.9bn in 2024 and -€9.3bn in 2023, France being the 2nd largest net contributor. Returns: €16.4bn a year on average. Under the 2028-2034 financial framework proposed by the Commission, the average annual levy would rise from €26bn (current framework) to €38bn.

Horizon. Full year, current €bn. In 2032, the 2028-2034 financial framework brings the contribution to €38bn on average according to the Commission's proposal.

Limits. The contribution is set by the « ressources propres » (own resources) decision (unanimity and ratification) and by the multiannual financial framework: a unilateral reduction would breach the treaties. The “exit” option is a static balance calculated by the editors. Low: 2024 balance (7.9). Central: voted 2026 levy of 28.44 minus 16.4 of average returns, i.e. 12.04. High: 38 (average proposed for 2028-2034) minus 16.4, i.e. 21.6. It ignores the returns that would have to be funded nationally (PAC: France receives 18.5% of the agricultural policy), customs duties, access to the single market, the cost of debt and the French share of the European debt linked to the recovery plan (extra contribution of about €2.5bn per year from 2028 according to the Cour des comptes, for lack of new own resources). It is not a net gain. The levy voted for 2026 is €28.44bn (finance act for 2026, art. 143), not €28.8bn (initial bill). Freezing at the 2025 level brings in 28.44 − 23.10 = €5.34bn according to amendment no. 1291 (GDR group), which proposes it. The contribution-ue parameter (rule on public bases, 18 October 2026, the same for all): a reduction in the contribution is costed on the levy voted for 2026, €28.44bn, assuming the reduction is obtained, as for leaving the EU (static costing; the means, a renegotiation requiring unanimity, is not assessed). A targeted net contribution (levy minus returns) is converted into a levy by adding the average returns, €16.4bn (Senate): a net contribution of €5bn is equivalent to a levy of €21.4bn, i.e. a gain of €7.04bn (only €2.9bn if one starts from the 2024 net accounting balance, €7.9bn). A return to the pre-Covid level is read on the levy executed in 2019, €21.025bn, in 2019 euros not updated: a gain of €7.41bn. Compared with the proposed 2028-2034 framework (€38bn on average), the gains would be higher, but this framework has not been adopted: it is not part of the baseline.

How to read these amounts. These are static costs and revenues, with no feedback effect, over a full year: nothing on growth, employment or the revenue that economic activity would gain or lose. A higher net cost does not on its own make a worse policy, nor net savings a better one: each programme rests on an economic model (demand-led stimulus, lower compulsory levies, consolidation of the public accounts…) that the cost schedule does not settle. GDP itself measures a volume of activity, not well-being or the usefulness of what is produced. Economic models and feedback effects.

This lever in the method · Costing for David Lisnard

  1. Programme Nouvelle Énergie, « Être maître de notre destin ». Read the programme page.

Contest this encoding (prefilled email; procedure and deadlines)