This article was written by Álvaro Villarroel and appeared in Demócrata. Así ha sido el primer debate del 29N en clave europea: el presupuesto, la migración y Ucrania dividen a los partidos.
Featuring Hermann Tertsch, Distinguished Fellow (Honorary), Gold Institute for International Strategy
The future of the European Union has also made its way into the campaign for the general elections of November 29. The multiannual financial framework for 2028-2034, the management of migration and the European response to the war in Ukraine were the focus of the first election debate on Europe organized by DEMÓCRATA, held at the European Parliament in Brussels.
The meeting brought together Tono López-Istúriz, representing the Partido Popular; Sandra Gómez, of the PSOE; Hermann Tertsch, of Vox; and Estrella Galán, of Sumar. The four representatives set out their opposing positions on the main decisions the Union will have to face in the coming years, in a debate moderated by Álvaro Villarroel, Demócrata’s correspondent in Brussels.
Their remarks laid bare fundamental differences over the model of European integration, the distribution of EU resources, the control of borders and the degree of autonomy the EU should develop in security and defense. These three areas will also shape the position Spain takes in EU negotiations during the next legislature.
The European budget pits traditional priorities against new investments
The next multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2028-2034 was one of the main points of friction. The European Commission’s proposal has opened a negotiation over how to divide resources between the Union’s traditional policies, especially the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the cohesion funds, and the new EU priorities, such as competitiveness, defense and strategic autonomy.
López-Istúriz argued that agriculture and cohesion must keep a central role in the European budget. The Partido Popular representative stressed the importance of direct CAP payments and of structural funds which, in his view, should continue to be managed with the participation of the autonomous communities. At the same time, he acknowledged the need to strengthen other budget lines, among them those for defense, education, housing and opportunities for young people.
The PP MEP placed competitiveness among the priorities the Union must address, although he warned of the difficulty of fitting in the new budgetary needs without compromising the European social model. The discussion, therefore, is not only about how much money the EU should spend, but also about how to distribute it among policies that compete for limited resources.
For the PSOE, Sandra Gómez questioned the Commission’s initial proposal because, in her view, it involves cuts to two of the main EU policies: the CAP and cohesion. The Socialist representative argued that the budget must keep its capacity to reduce territorial inequalities and respond to crises, and she pointed to the experience of the DANA storm to illustrate the importance of having mechanisms of solidarity and reconstruction.
Gómez also called for the Union to have greater financing capacity of its own. In this regard, she defended the creation of new own resources that would allow the EU budget to grow without shifting the whole burden onto national contributions. Among the formulas she put forward are levies linked to the large digital platforms, online betting and transactions in crypto-assets.
Estrella Galán agreed on the need to review European revenues, but she put the emphasis on the impact that a reduction in the funds for social and territorial policies would have. The Sumar representative warned of the risk of concentrating different budget lines in a single fund which, in her view, could weaken the capacity of states and regions to meet their specific needs.
Galán rejected the idea that strengthening competitiveness should come at the expense of labor rights, environmental protection or social guarantees. She also defended a review of taxation so that large companies contribute in a more balanced way to the financing of public policies.
Hermann Tertsch’s position marked a deeper distance from the Union’s budgetary and regulatory model. The Vox representative maintained that Europe suffers from an excess of regulation that harms its ability to compete with other economic powers. Consequently, he called for a reduction of regulatory burdens and a review of spending priorities before any new taxes are proposed or citizens’ contributions are increased.
The debate over own resources again showed the differences between the blocs. While Gómez defended new sources of revenue linked to digital and financial economic activities, Tertsch rejected raising the tax burden and called for a review of where the funds go first. López-Istúriz, for his part, 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 externalization of borders
Migration policy was the second major axis of confrontation. The application of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, the control of external borders, returns and cooperation with third countries showed the differences between those who give priority to stronger control mechanisms and those who call for wider legal routes of entry and guarantees of protection.
Galán questioned the approach with which the Union is developing its migration policy and said that the European pact was born “mortally wounded.” The Sumar representative criticized the EU institutions for placing expulsions and border control at the center of their strategy while, in her view, legal and safe routes into European territory have not been developed enough.
Along those lines, she defended the expansion of visas, resettlement mechanisms and other forms of regular migration. She also questioned agreements with third countries when there are not sufficient guarantees to protect the rights of migrants, with particular attention to the outsourcing of European responsibilities to countries such as Morocco.
Tertsch defended a firmer policy on border control. The Vox representative called for a review of how the asylum system works and linked the management of migration flows to the preservation of social cohesion. He also proposed the “remigration” of people who are in an irregular situation, a position he placed at the center of his remarks.
Sandra Gómez rejected the idea that migration should be addressed only from an economic or utilitarian perspective. The Socialist representative defended labor integration and regularization as instruments to respond to the needs of the labor market and guarantee the rights of migrants. She also questioned agreements with third countries when, in her view, they do not include sufficient safeguards.
The PSOE’s position sought to combine the management of migration flows with a defense of fundamental rights and of integration mechanisms. Gómez insisted that migration policy cannot be reduced to a discussion about expulsions, and she brought into the debate the situation of especially vulnerable groups, as well as the difficulties posed by cooperation with certain regimes.
López-Istúriz 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 Partido Popular representative called for more effective border management and greater use of the capabilities of EU agencies such as Frontex and Europol.
On migratory pressure on Spain, he questioned the Government’s actions and maintained that the available European instruments have not been used enough. He also recalled that the intervention of these agencies depends on the requests and cooperation of the member states, a circumstance that conditions their operational deployment.
The four sets of remarks thus reflected a discussion that goes beyond the technical application of the migration pact. The underlying question lies in the balance between border control, external cooperation, international protection and legal routes of access, areas in which the parties hold clearly different proposals.
Ukraine and defense: support for Kyiv and differences over European autonomy
The war in Ukraine completed the three major blocks of the debate. The continuity of European support for Kyiv, the strengthening of military capabilities and the transatlantic relationship set against each other different visions of the role the Union should play in the new security landscape.
López-Istúriz argued that Europe must maintain its military and financial backing for Ukraine until a peace is reached that guarantees its security. The PP representative placed support for Kyiv within the defense of sovereignty and the international order, although he also warned of the risks associated with the circulation of weapons and their possible diversion to criminal networks. As for an eventual accession of Ukraine to the European Union, he argued that the process must follow the criteria set for any candidate country. Political support for Kyiv, therefore, must not translate into a change in the conditions for enlargement.
Gómez defended moving toward a European defense policy with greater instruments of common financing and economies of scale. The Socialist representative considered it necessary to strengthen EU capabilities, but she questioned whether the increase in military spending should become an automatic obligation in response to the demands of the United States. The PSOE’s remarks linked European security to the need to reduce strategic dependencies and maintain backing for Ukraine. Gómez argued that aid to Kyiv helps protect the civilian population, and she criticized Donald Trump’s positions on Russia and the energy relationship with Moscow.
Tertsch also defended maintaining support for Ukraine, although he placed the transatlantic relationship at the center of his approach. The Vox representative maintained that European security continues to depend in large measure on the alliance with the United States, and he questioned whether the Union can build a sufficient deterrent capability apart from Washington. In that context, he criticized Spanish energy policy and imports of Russian gas, which he used to question the Government’s coherence in its position toward Moscow. His remarks defended greater European military strength, but without detaching it from the American security umbrella.
Galán, for her part, questioned whether the strengthening of defense should be financed through reductions in other EU policies. The Sumar representative warned that security cannot become an argument for weakening social funds, cohesion or environmental policies. The MEP defended a diplomatic solution that would achieve a “just and lasting peace” and called for Russia to bear the costs of rebuilding Ukraine. Her position stressed 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 faces a decisive European agenda
In the final stretch, the four participants summarized the priorities which, in their view, Spain should defend in the European Union during the next legislature. Their remarks again reflected the differences over the model of integration, the scope of EU powers and the relationship between national policies and shared decisions.
Galán called for a Europe centered on social rights, territorial cohesion and environmental protection. Tertsch defended a more limited Union, based on the principle of subsidiarity, the priority of the states and a reduction of EU regulation. Gómez upheld the social democratic model and the defense of freedoms and public services. López-Istúriz 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 showed that the elections of November 29 will determine not only the composition of the next Government, but also the direction Spain will defend in some of the Union’s most important negotiations. The budget for 2028-2034, the application of the Pact on Migration and Asylum and the response to the war in Ukraine will oblige the new Executive to set positions before its EU partners.
The differences set out in Brussels point, in short, to a discussion that will continue in the European institutions over the coming years. The financing of common priorities, the balance between control and protection in migration, and the Union’s degree of strategic autonomy will be some of the decisions that measure the capacity of the Spanish parties to carry their national proposals onto the EU agenda.
Read the full article at Demócrata
Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, D.C. foreign policy and defense think tank.
