1. We cannot accept a Union drifting from its founding promise
Territorial cohesion is not a technical term — it is a political commitment established in the Treaties, the promise that every European citizen, regardless of where they live, should be able to benefit from European integration and have access to opportunities and public services of high quality.
It is the Union’s way of saying that geography should not determine destiny.
Yet today, this founding promise is being quietly eroded. The vision advanced by the current Commission is that of a Union ready to walk away from its own responsibility and delegate territorial cohesion to national capitals, to tell regions and cities to negotiate their future at home, and to wash its hands of it.
2. Member states alone cannot bridge their internal divides
If they could, they would have done so already. In many parts of Europe — from depopulated rural regions to industrial areas in transition — disparities are so deep that they require a truly European response, one that combines resources, territorial cooperation, knowledge, and partnership across all levels of governance. These disparities within countries demand European answers — not only because they often stem from the costs of “non-Europe,” such as gaps in the single market or weak cross-border cooperation, but also because many of their drivers are European in scale, from climate change to the green and digital transitions.
Abandoning shared management, the partnership principle, and weakening multilevel governance is not simplification; it is a retreat from democracy and solidarity. It's a step away from the model that made the European Union more than a market — a community of shared responsibility, where citizens everywhere could see the benefits of integration. In a time of rising polarisation and the spread of populist governments, it is politically irresponsible to leave the fate of progressive cities and regions entirely in the hands of national capitals.
3. Competitiveness without cohesion is fragmentation disguised as progress
The objective of raising Europe’s productive capacity is turned into a zero-sum race between territories and industries. Ursula von der Leyen's idea of competitiveness is built on lowering social and environmental standards, making large companies even larger and promoting new technologies, but it neglects the small and mid-size industrial ecosystems, local supply chains, and the public infrastructures that sustain Europe’s productive fabric. A Union that only backs its champions risks losing its foundations. By decoupling competitiveness from cohesion, the EU risks deepening divides between innovation hubs and left-behind regions, between the urban and the rural, the centre and the periphery. A fair, sustainable, competitive Europe must be built from all its territories, not at their expense.
4. The new MFF proposal betrays the common European project
The Commission’s proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework is the clearest expression of this worrying direction. By creating “one pot per Member State,” it effectively ends decades of common European policies like Cohesion and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), turning the EU budget into a mere sum of national allocations.
This is not simplification — it is nationalisation. It weakens transparency and accountability, erodes European oversight, and sidelines local and regional authorities and parliaments that give democratic legitimacy to EU spending.
5. Turning European structural funds into a transaction weakens the Union
The “cash-for-reforms” model encapsulates this drift. What used to be a symbol of European solidarity and common structural investment would be reduced to a mere transaction, with the risk of curbing support to member states and regions who need it the most.
The “cash-for-reforms” approach aggravates this democratic deficit. It reduces the role of the European Parliament and regional assemblies to spectators, while decision-making becomes increasingly technocratic and discretionary. Excluding those most affected by the choices of how EU money is being spent will weaken the legitimacy and effectiveness of the EU.
6. Turning European structural funds into a bargain weakens the Union
The abandonment of a seven-year pre-allocation decision threatens long-term planning. Regions, cities, and social partners need predictable frameworks to invest in infrastructure, skills, twin transition, and inclusion. Instead, they are being asked to compete annually for funds, with no certainty beyond the next political negotiation. This is how short-termism replaces strategy — and how Europe loses direction. We welcome flexibility and simplification, but they must go hand in hand with a real regional policy in which funds are pre-assigned to all regions for a seven-year period, ensuring structural and predictable support to every territory in the Union.
7. A false promise even for less developed regions
The European Commission’s proposed ring-fencing of €218 billion for less developed regions is not a guarantee of territorial justice. On paper, it appears to protect those most in need; in reality, it relies on a blunt and outdated indicator: regional GDP. This metric is not only territorially blind but also socially deaf, ignoring the complexity of inequality across Europe. By focusing solely on the least developed regions, it abandons the principle that cohesion policy must be a true European policy of solidarity, one that covers all European regions. The Commission proposals risk leaving transition and more developed regions behind. Under these conditions, cohesion policy would no longer be a tool for unity, but a mechanism for division. This is a betrayal of the European project’s core promise: that no region, no community, and no citizen is left behind. What is on the table today is not reform, it is retreat.
8. Consequences we do not want: A weaker, distrustful, more divided Europe
The direction taken by the Commission risks turning cohesion into competition — between regions, ministries, and spending priorities. Whether it is defense versus agriculture, climate versus education, or urban versus rural development, competition for a single pot of money does not produce efficiency. It produces fragmentation, unpredictability, and loss of trust.
We do not recognise ourselves in a Union that puts regions against one another, that forces them to fight for budget shares in their national capitals. Nor in one where ministries must compete for resources in a mega-fund designed for administrative convenience, not strategic purpose.
This is not the Europe of partnership and shared management. It is a Europe outsourcing responsibility — and washing its hands of the social and territorial divides that threaten its unity.
9. As progressives we want to restore cohesion as Europe’s strategic compass
Europe needs a new course — one that restores cohesion as its strategic compass, not as a side policy. Cohesion is the foundation of competitiveness, not an obstacle to it. A place-based, partnership-driven European Union that involves all democratic levels in decisions can seize every region’s potential, strengthen trust in institutions, and build resilience where it is most needed. The next long-term budget must return to seven-year, predictable frameworks, based on territorial strengths, needs, and fairness. Regions must be partners — not beneficiaries — in shaping the Union’s future.
A truly solid Europe is one that sees solidarity and territorial justice as strategic, as the path to renewal. If we want a stronger, fairer, more democratic Union, Europe must come back to its territories — because that is where its citizens live, where hope begins, and where the promise of the Union must be made real again.
