• China, India, and the US have the largest active armed forces in the world.
• The International Institute for Strategic Studies compiled data about the world's militaries.
• The world's top armies spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense each year.

The US military may lead the world in budget size and in the ambitions of its warfare technology, but there is one measure by which it is outsized by other nations.

Using data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies' 2026 Military Balance report, Business Insider ranked the top 25 countries by the size of their active armed forces during 2025 and listed their defense budgets that same year.

Active-duty force size is a tally of a country's uniformed troops: airmen, soldiers, sailors, special operators, and Marines.

Armies, in particular, depend on size to gain and occupy ground during armed conflicts.

Militaries can also be a tool of domestic repression. North Korea, for example, is one of the world's most repressive states, led by a dictator who has repeatedly threatened neighboring South Korea — and it also has one of the world's largest militaries.

The number of active-duty military personnel is far from the only factor that matters when comparing military power between countries, but it reflects latent power.

"Numbers have value, but there's a lot more to military capability," Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, DC-based foreign policy and national security think tank, told Business Insider.

IISS, a London-headquartered think tank, counts active armed forces, reservists, and paramilitaries as separate categories in its analysis, showing a fuller picture of each nation's manpower.

Some countries have significantly more reservists than others — Vietnam has the largest number in the world, estimated at 5 million — but the quality and longevity of their expertise can vary between systems.

"When you look at some countries' reserve numbers, you're often looking at people who haven't trained in 10 or 20 years," Cancian said. "It gives you a big number, but their military value is questionable."

Even when accounting for all of a military's manpower, personnel is only one of the factors that can qualify a nation's military strength, which also includes equipment and readiness.

There's also the role of technologies in global warfare, the size and sophistication of air forces and naval fleets, amphibious capabilities for landing assault forces, command-and-control systems, and nuclear forces, all of which shape military power.

Still, comparing global manpower offers insight into how countries prioritize military power.

See how the world's largest militaries stack up in terms of active troop numbers.

25. Iraq

Active armed forces: 193,000

Defense budget: $12.7 billion

24. Morocco

Active armed forces: 196,000

Defense budget: $7.5 billion

23. France

Active armed forces: 204,000

Defense budget: $70 billion

22. Japan

Active armed forces: 247,000

Defense budget: $58.9 billion

21. Saudi Arabia

Active armed forces: 257,000

Defense budget: $72.5 billion

20. Sri Lanka

Active armed forces: 260,000

Defense budget: $1.4 billion

19. Colombia

Active armed forces: 285,000

Defense budget: $8.3 billion

18. Mexico

Active armed forces: 301,000

Defense budget: $11.4 billion

17. Eritrea

Active armed forces: 302,000

Defense budget: Not reported

16. Turkey

Active armed forces: 355,000

Defense budget: $21.5 billion

15. Thailand

Active armed forces: 361,000

Defense budget: $5.8 billion

14. Brazil

Active armed forces: 375,000

Defense budget: $24.2 billion

13. Indonesia

Active armed forces: 434,000

Defense budget: $15 billion

12. Egypt

Active armed forces: 439,000

Defense budget: $2.3 billion

11. Vietnam

Active armed forces: 450,000

Defense budget: $8.4 billion

10. South Korea

Active armed forces: 450,000

Defense budget: $43.8 billion

9. Ethiopia

Active armed forces: 503,000

Defense budget: $484 million

8. Iran

Active armed forces: 610,000

Defense budget: $6.1 billion

7. Pakistan

Active armed forces: 660,000

Defense budget: $10 billion

6. Ukraine

Active armed forces: 677,000

Defense budget: $44.4 billion

5. Russia

Active armed forces: 1,264,000

Defense budget: $161.2 billion

4. North Korea

Active armed forces: 1,280,000

Defense budget: Not reported

3. United States

Active armed forces: 1,340,000

Defense budget: $921 billion

2. India

Active armed forces: 1,501,000

Defense budget: $78.3 billion

1. China

Active armed forces: 2,035,000

Defense budget: $251.3 billion

• I live in Las Vegas, and the city often feels like it was designed to take money from tourists.
• ATMs on the Strip often charge steep fees, and parking can be costly if you don't do your research.
• Many things, from toiletries to clothing, tend to be more expensive in the casinos.

Las Vegas is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world.

And, in a lot of ways, it's designed to take your cash. From the moment you step off the plane, you're greeted with the flashing lights and glitzy promise of easy money topped with a good time. Just put a dollar or 10 into the slot machines, and all your dreams might come true!

I've lived here for almost 20 years, and the first thing you learn as a local is that the house always wins. The second thing you learn is how to make sure it doesn't win everything.

Here are a few things I think tourists should stop wasting money on when they visit Las Vegas.

ATMs on the Strip can have really high fees.

No one should come to Vegas without a plan, and that includes a gambling budget.

It's rare for someone to walk through the winding maze of slot machines and not feel inclined to drop a few dollars. It's like an adult video game that often comes with free drinks.

But the last thing you want is to find yourself in the middle of a gambling streak without any cash. Many casino ATM fees hover around $10 a transaction, but I've also seen worse.

Instead, stop by an ATM or a bank off the Strip. It might seem inconvenient, but between resort fees, room taxes, and inflated prices, the last thing you want is to lose money by simply taking out cash.

You'll probably be paying a premium if you buy a drink at the first bar you see.

In my experience, if the bar is conveniently located, you're probably going to pay too much for the drink. Even inside the casinos, the bars closest to the lobby will often be more expensive than others tucked in the back.

For example, in the same section of a casino, I once found two vendors selling nearly identical frozen cocktails, but the one closer to the action had prices double the other's.

So, before ordering, walk around a bit and see if you can find a better deal.

And if you have the time, play a few dollars at the slots and wait for the cocktail server. Most casinos offer free drinks if you're actively gambling.

Getting advanced tickets for shows is often way pricier than waiting until the day of.

Vegas is known for its broad selection of world-class shows. From Cirque du Soleil to any number of all-star residencies, there's no shortage of killer entertainment on the Strip.

However, that doesn't mean you have to pay full price for tickets. In fact, given how unpredictable a day in Las Vegas can be, waiting until the last minute has its perks.

Kiosks along the Strip often offer unsold, day-of tickets for around half the original price. Plus, several websites and other vendors have similar deals with casinos and entertainment venues.

This requires some flexibility and risk — not all shows have unsold tickets or offer lower prices every day. However, if you don't mind some uncertainty and love a good deal, it's easy enough to find cheap seats not long before a show starts.

Clothes, toiletries, and other essentials tend to cost a lot more on the Strip.

Whether you're looking for designer duds or a toiletry you forgot, you'll be able to find it in Vegas.

There are tons of shops conveniently located near every major casino property and all along the Strip.

However, at a lot of these places, you may find yourself paying a premium for basics and items that aren't that special. For example, I've seen a four-pack of Motrin for $5 and a not-officially-licensed Las Vegas Raiders jacket going for $150.

So, pack your essentials from home whenever possible and be vigilant when you browse. And, if you want to do some shopping during your trip, head just north of the Strip to the Premium Outlets for better deals.

Parking fees can really add up.

For years, casinos didn't charge for parking in their garages — and some still don't. So knowing which ones do can stop you from wasting money.

Additionally, it might seem like renting a car is the way to go to save on rideshare or cab fees. However, if you don't pay attention, you could easily spend way more on parking for a day than on a few rideshare trips.

Before you head to Vegas, definitely research parking garages and do a little math to see if it's even worth having a car.

This story was originally published on January 6, 2024, and most recently updated on October 26, 2026.

The prime minister previously said that he wanted a debate on how Britain can establish a closer relationship

Speaking at his rough sleeping summit in Downing Street this morning, Andy Burnham expanded on the claim he made on Good Morning Britain about tackling rough sleeping being cheaper than ignoring the problem. (See 11.13am.)

He said:

We’ve also got to be conscious when we speak to the rest of the country, the taxpayers of this country, that actually to leave people sleeping rough has financial consequences. It doesn’t work for anybody and it doesn’t work for the public purse, because if you leave people in a position where they are in and out of A&E, and in and out of a hospital bed, that doesn’t make sense for anybody.

There is a rock-solid business case to do something to end homelessness, to put people on a path to recovery, so that they can contribute once again. And that should be the thinking that we take to this conversation.

Burnham is throwing another £432m at a problem he failed to solve in Greater Manchester. Under Labour, rough sleeping has hit record highs – yet their answer is always more taxpayers’ money and more empty promises.

[John] Healey must use his budget this week to cut taxes for working people, get the ballooning benefits bill under control, and stop pushing up energy prices.

John Healey is expected to confirm on Wednesday that the full state pension will rise by £489 to £13,036 – equivalent to 3.9%.

However, the rise will push about one million people on low incomes who rely on the state pension above the £12,570 personal allowance threshold, meaning they would be dragged into paying income tax.

Japan’s debate over nuclear-powered submarines is gaining momentum, but political deliberation should not be mistaken for a done deal. As Tokyo prepares to revise its three principal national security documents by the end of 2026, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has opened the door to a long-politically sensitive capability. On October 14, she told parliament that […]

The post Does Japan need nuclear subs? The debate is bigger than China appeared first on Asia Times.

Calculations from the Center for Global Development say spending next year is likely to be £410m less than anticipated

The UK is on course to miss its target of spending 0.3% of national income on international aid by an estimated £400m by the end of next year.

Calculations from the Center for Global Development (CGD) found the UK was on course for a large shortfall in promised official development assistance at the end of 2027.

• Years ago, I made fun of sports parents who went all out and spent thousands on their kids.
• Now I'm one of them.
• Last season cost our family over $8,800. Looking back, I have no regrets and would do it all again.

Ten years ago, I was the mom making fun of select sports parents. I thought they were crazy. Nuts. Over-spenders. People who didn't understand priorities, or budgeting, for that matter. Then I became one of them.

It didn't happen overnight, but gradually. My then-7-year-old son was asked to try out for a team. At the time, it seemed more competitive than the rec league he had been playing in, but not overly so. Practice times doubled. Costs also doubled. The following year, it happened again, and they doubled again. And now, I'm a mom of 5, with an 11-year-old who is obsessed with his select baseball team. Well, career. It's called a career, he's told me.

And that would be fine, but it's the unexpected costs that really caught me off guard. Over time, I got used to the idea that team fees would pass the three-figure mark. I was okay with that, because I saw the joy it brought him and realized that he's a young athlete who is more naturally competitive than rec teams typically allow for.

What I didn't anticipate were the extra costs. Here's how much it really costs to be a select sports family. And as select sports families might note, this isn't even for the most competitive, select travel teams in our area.

The real cost of select sports for our family

Growing up as a competitive gymnast, I look back and realize what it really meant for my single mom to shell out $90 for a competition leotard — and that was 25 years ago. Now, I see just how those extras add up and can tank a budget unexpectedly, one little overpriced concession stand hot dog at a time.

If I sit and add up the cost of the sport, which I do periodically, I find that it's a lot, even if I'm focusing on the more conservative end of our expenses. Here's how last season played out for us:

• Concession stand spending: $40 per game, estimated at $2,000 for last season. Our family of seven attends 40 to 60 games a season. Yes, we could pack our own food, but here we are, imperfect and flawed parents, just trying to find a uniform 10 minutes before warm-up.
• Gas: at least $700 per season. Our local practice field is over 20 minutes away so we do our fair share of driving for the sport. We also have tournaments in cities that are hours away, our furthest was about a 5-hour drive. In a season, this accounts for 10 to 12 tanks of gas, which of course varies with the price we pay at the pump. If we drive our large Sprinter van with the whole family tagging along, it's even more.

• Gear: around $1,250 last season. I consider myself a slightly scrappy shopper, having grown up on garage sale gear. So as an adult, I try to walk the line of buying new items, such as baseball gloves and pants (used pants at this age are often very worn), cold gear for chilly practices, hats, gloves, catcher gear (used on eBay), cleats, socks, and more. Then, there's gear from the actual team, such as belts and casual wear like hoodies and shorts. None of this includes the overpriced composite bats, which range from $200 to $500 apiece and come with the promise of "hitting bombs." Sure, we don't buy everything new every season, but looking back over my credit card bills reveals this past season was a pricey one.
• Private lessons: $300 a month for six months. As anyone with a semi-serious athlete knows, regular practice never seems to be enough. When my son became a catcher, we had to, well, catch up and learn catching. When he hit a mental block with hitting, his private lesson teacher scheduled extra sessions.
• Babysitting: $600 last season. When a game starts at 8 p.m. and ends after 10, parents with little kids need other options. Sometimes, we have our local babysitter chip in and help the other kids maintain a more normal schedule, including bedtimes. This can add up, but sometimes it's just nice to watch your older kid play without toddlers climbing on you with sticky hands. We pay our sitter $25 an hour and used them several times last season.

• Parent gear: $400 last season. Parents are the fan club, and they need to look the part. Even if each parent buys just an item or two from the team pro shop, it adds up. I might have also grabbed the super-cute Bauble Bar Perfect Catch Earring Set this year, along with team-colored HOKA sneakers for lugging gear around the city and getting some steps in during warmups. Finally, with so many kids, we invested in a double-decker wagon that hauls kids, chairs, drinks, snacks, and diaper bags from game to game.
• Hotel stays: $1,200 for four nights away. I know this is lower than many teams with a heavier travel schedule, but our cost is higher because we need a suite or two rooms for our large family. Teams often require these stays, and hanging out in the hotel pool is a big part of the kids' memory-making that can't be skipped.
• Registration fees: $900 per season. There are options to fundraise for parts of this, but I very rarely feel good about asking others to pay for my son's sports. I know it works for some people, but for me, going to the same people over and over to chip in feels off (aside from the grandparents who are always down to buy a coupon book).

The total isn't the point

When I say I really don't want to add this list up, I mean it. But for the sake of other parents who feel stressed about so much of their family budget going to sports, or those who need a real look at what it entails, I will.

Before I do, though, I have to acknowledge what all these extras mean for my son. The movement outside instead of getting addicted to screens: priceless. The self-esteem and confidence gained by overcoming stress in a high-pressure game: priceless. The camaraderie and friendships on a team: priceless. The bonding experience of watching the sunset with toddlers screaming their brother's name and number: priceless.

The grand total for the past season landed around $8,850, give or take a bag of popcorn or four. I'm off now to get a second job.

Spring signups are happening soon. I'll do what I can to save, and hope my son doesn't need a new bat, but I know I'll gladly be paying close to this again for yet another season. After all, the popcorn is decent, and my son's joy is contagious.

The European Parliament voted on Thursday, 22nd October, to support a €47.4 billion budget for the Erasmus+ programme between 2028 and 2034, demanding substantially more funding than proposed by the European Commission.

The parliamentary position was approved by 454 votes to 34, with 93 abstentions, following negotiations over the future of the EU’s principal education, training and student mobility programme.

MEPs are seeking approximately €6.56 billion more than the Commission’s proposed €40.83 billion allocation, arguing that existing financial support does not adequately reflect rising living costs and the expense of studying abroad.

The decision establishes Parliament’s negotiating position but does not represent final approval of the funding. The programme remains subject to negotiations with national governments and agreement on the EU’s next seven-year budget.

Rising living costs affect student mobility

Erasmus+ allows students, apprentices, teachers and other participants to study, train or gain professional experience in another participating country.

Although widely associated with university exchanges, the programme also supports vocational education, schools, adult learning, youth organisations and sporting activities.

Participation often involves substantial personal expenditure, particularly for accommodation, transport and everyday living expenses.

These costs vary considerably between European destinations, creating financial difficulties for students whose Erasmus grants cover only part of their expenses.

The European Parliament is consequently calling for support mechanisms that account for differences in housing and living costs between host countries, regions and cities.

The proposal is intended to make participation more accessible to people who cannot rely on additional financial assistance from their families.

The European Parliament’s research service has identified unequal access, financial limitations and administrative complexity among the challenges facing the programme.

The proposed legislation would also establish a target under which at least 20 per cent of participants in mobility activities would be people facing fewer educational or economic opportunities.

Parliament seeks larger education allocation

The parliamentary proposal provides for approximately €47.39 billion in current prices over seven years.

The Commission originally proposed approximately €40.83 billion, combining funding for Erasmus+ with activities currently administered through the European Solidarity Corps.

According to the report prepared by Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, the revised programme would include more explicit financial allocations for different activities.

Education and training would account for approximately 74.6 per cent of the proposed financial envelope, while youth and volunteering would receive around 15 per cent. Sport would receive approximately 4.1 per cent.

The proposed allocation structure is intended to provide greater certainty for organisations planning longer-term educational projects and cross-border partnerships.

Polish MEP Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, of the European People’s Party, is Parliament’s rapporteur on the legislation. His report calls for greater transparency over expenditure and more predictable funding arrangements.

The programme would continue supporting European university alliances, international educational cooperation and initiatives intended to improve professional skills.

Volunteering and vocational training

One proposed change concerns the integration of the European Solidarity Corps into the wider Erasmus+ framework.

The Solidarity Corps currently offers young people opportunities to participate in volunteering and community activities, including projects addressing social and humanitarian needs.

The Commission has proposed bringing these activities within the new programme in an attempt to simplify administration.

However, parliamentarians want safeguards to ensure that volunteering remains identifiable and accessible within the broader funding structure.

The parliamentary position also seeks to extend mobility opportunities across vocational training, adult education and sport.

These activities would allow a wider range of participants to benefit from international placements, including people outside conventional university education.

Additional attention is being given to the financial circumstances of participants and the administrative requirements faced by smaller educational organisations.

Dispute over the EU’s next budget

The Erasmus+ negotiations are taking place against the background of a wider dispute over the European Union’s 2028–2034 financial framework.

Member states are debating the overall size of the budget and the competing demands of agricultural policy, regional development, defence, research and education.

As EU Today recently examined, the negotiations have exposed disagreements over whether the EU should expand its financial commitments or constrain expenditure during a period of pressure on national finances.

Parliament’s Erasmus+ proposal will therefore depend not only on agreement over educational priorities but also on the final distribution of resources across the wider EU budget.

Some governments may support broader participation while resisting the full increase requested by MEPs.

What happens next?

Negotiations must establish the programme’s final budget, eligibility rules and the arrangements governing grants after 2027.

The Council has already developed a negotiating position on aspects of the programme, although financial questions remain connected to the broader budget settlement.

Erasmus+ will mark its 40th anniversary in 2027, shortly before the new framework is scheduled to begin.

More than 17 million people have participated in the programme and its related activities since its establishment.

The outcome of the current negotiations will determine whether the next generation of participants receives more financial support and whether the programme can expand without increasing the proportion of costs borne by students and their families.

The Executive plans to cut the budget in social areas such as public health and energy subsidies for vulnerable sectors.

On Thursday, Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella dismissed Interior Minister Rodrigo Lara following the crisis triggered by the failure of the 2027 National Budget bill in Congress.

RELATED: Colombia Budget Bill Faces Legal Challenge Over Text Discrepancy

The controversy arose after the Senate and the House of Representatives approved different versions of the budget without reaching a consensus before the constitutional deadline for the legislative process.

Faced with the impossibility of passing the initiative through parliamentary means, the government decided to use a decree to implement the national budget for the next fiscal year.

Senator Esmeralda Hernandez criticized the procedure followed during the legislative debate and attributed the failure to irregularities and errors committed during the discussion of the bill.

According to complaints, the version of the budget decreed by the Executive includes cuts in social areas such as public health, energy subsidies for vulnerable sectors, and programs for senior citizens.

To replace Lara, the president appointed Alejandro Ordoñez, former Attorney General and former ambassador to the Organization of American States, as the new Minister of the Interior. Ordoñez is one of the most prominent figures in Colombia’s conservative sector.

He served as Attorney General from 2009 to 2016, a period marked by controversial decisions, including the dismissal of Gustavo Petro, then-mayor of Bogota, a decision later overturned by international bodies.

While his appointment is being formalized, the Ministry of the Interior will be led on an interim basis by Minister of Justice Ivan Cancino, amid concerns about the country’s projected fiscal deficit.

The government confirmed that it will use the mechanism provided for in the budget legislation to directly enact the 2027 budget, arguing that this measure will guarantee the functioning of the State following the failure of the legislative process.

teleSUR: JP

Source: teleSUR

The European Parliament overwhelmingly supported an increased budget and scope for the Erasmus+ student-exchange programme under the new EU budget on Thursday (22 October).

The plenary in Strasbourg opted for a €7bn increase in Erasmus+’s budget compared to the commission’s proposal, by 454 votes, with 34 abstentions, against 93, mostly from right-wing parties.

And it was an audacious move, seeing as ‘frugal’ EU capitals are pushing for €150bn of cuts to the commission’s draft.

But even a “slight increase” in Erasmus+ funds would mean more opportunities for thousands of people, said Bogdan Zdrojewski, a Polish centre-right MEP, who was the rapporteur on the file, during a parliamentary debate earlier on Wednesday.

Celebrating its 40th anniversary in 2027, Erasmus+ enables young people to study, live, and work in foreign countries both inside the 27 EU states and the programme’s 160 “associate” states worldwide.

Some 17 million people have taken part since it began, with an estimated 1 million babies also born to couples who met on exchange, in what the commission has long used as a flagship PR project for creating a feel-good factor about the EU.

Meanwhile, the UK will rejoin the programme in 2027, which means EU students will once more have the opportunity to also spend a semester in Britain, which hosts some of Europe’s and the world’s top universities.

And the parliament would also welcome Canada’s full participation in a few years’ time, Zdrojewski told press on Wednesday.

The EU Parliament would like to expand Erasmus+ to more vocational training. “Erasmus+ will be a programme for Europeans no matter what age, what stage of life,” Zdrojewski said.

And students from poorer homes should get more support to live in pricey cities abroad, he added.

The share of Erasmus+ participants who had fewer opportunities to travel under the present structure stood at 15 percent in 2023 – up from 10 percent only two years earlier, according to a commission evaluation.

“Far too often, it is still the parents’ financial situation that determines who can take part in Erasmus+ and who cannot,” said Sabrina Repp, a German socialist MEP, in Wednesday’s debate in Strasbourg.

Working students often cannot afford to quit their current job to go abroad, she added: “That is precisely what we must change.”

The EU budget talks are to be finalised early next year.

Some 83 percent of Erasmus+ participants say they gained professional skills that helped them in the labour market.

But in order for those opportunities to be available more widely, “we need more funding for this programme,” also said Lucia Yar, a Slovak liberal MEP in the Strasbourg debate.

Ukraine is heading into 2027 with a rising fiscal gap. Growth forecasts have been cut, inflation is rising, and the need for external financing seems to just keep going up. The economy is being squeezed by a labor market drained by mobilization and emigration, energy infrastructure has been decimated, and

Kemi Badenoch has said a "red warning light" is flashing on the economy as Britain's debt tops £3 trillion for the first time and inflation surges to 3.5% ahead of the Budget next week.

The post Badenoch Warns of “Red Warning Light” on Economy as UK Debt Tops £3 Trillion and Inflation Surges to 3.5% Ahead of Budget appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

The EU is pressing allies, such as the UK, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Norway, to help close a €70bn shortfall in Ukraine’s funding for next year, after president Volodymyr Zelensky warned that the war will cost €155bn in 2027.

EU Council president António Costa told MEPs in Strasbourg on Wednesday (21 October) that member states already provided 80 percent of external aid to Ukraine and “international partners must also step up their efforts”. 

“Our commitment to peace must go hand in hand with sustained pressure on the aggressor,” he also said, after meeting Zelensky at an EU summit in Brussels last week.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen also told MEPs on Wednesday: “The war will not be decided on the frontline; the war will be decided in our political will, in whether we stand up for freedom and democracy and support our Ukrainian friends.” 

Zelensky’s €155bn figure refers to Ukraine’s total war-related spending in 2027, part of which Kyiv covers from its own budget.

But that still left a €70bn gap that Ukraine needed foreign partners to fill, as next year approached.

The EU has already agreed a €90bn loan covering 2026 and 2027, meant to meet two-thirds of Ukraine’s financing needs over that period.

The remaining third was supposed to come from other partners, but so far that money has been secured only for 2026, not for 2027.

Costa told MEPs on Wednesday that €16bn had been disbursed this year under the defence line of the loan, while another €17bn could be sent to Ukraine if anti-corruption reforms were implemented.

“Our determination to support Ukraine and its people is stronger than ever,” he said.

EU hopes for Ukraine cash from allies

Meanwhile, EU commissioner Maroš Šefčovič also indicated on Monday that Britain will be asked to increase funding to Ukraine, speaking ahead of an EU-UK summit on 20 November.

“Following the signature of a contribution agreement on 13 July 2026, the UK can now participate under the EU’s €90bn Ukraine support loan,” he said.

Both the EU and UK would support Ukraine “as long as it takes to bring Russia’s illegal war of aggression to an end”, Šefčovič added.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

Portugal’s Socialist Party is bringing together its main leaders today to discuss the position to take in the vote on the State Budget for 2027 (OE2027).  The party’s secretary-general, José

The post PS Socialists ‘decide today on how they will vote over State Budget’ appeared first on Portugal Resident.

Europe wants cheaper energy, stronger industries, secure borders and the capacity to sustain Ukraine. Its budget negotiations are exposing the difficulty of paying for those ambitions while protecting established spending programmes and containing national contributions.

Wednesday’s European Parliament debate on the October EU summit brought that contradiction into focus. The dispute over the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework is becoming a test of whether Europe can translate geopolitical urgency into durable financial commitments.

According to Parliament’s account of the debate, European Council President António Costa wants agreement before the year’s end. He advocated an ambitious budget while keeping national contributions reasonable, alongside progress on new EU revenue sources.

Those objectives are politically attractive. Reconciling them will require difficult choices over spending, taxation and the distribution of authority.

MEPs challenged the assumption that the Union can keep expanding its responsibilities without providing additional resources. Speakers identified support for Ukraine, industrial competitiveness, agriculture, regional development and household living costs among competing priorities.

Their argument has force. A budget negotiated around yesterday’s compromises risks leaving Europe poorly equipped for tomorrow’s threats. Yet calls for ambition become less persuasive when they avoid specifying which programmes deliver measurable European benefits.

The emerging distribution of cuts illustrates the problem. As EU Today previously reported, the Irish presidency’s compromise proposed reducing the Commission’s plans by approximately €141 billion, with competitiveness and security facing proportionately deeper reductions than agriculture and cohesion spending.

That creates an uncomfortable possibility: the policies most closely associated with Europe’s strategic renewal could become bargaining chips in negotiations dominated by established beneficiaries.

Protecting farmers and poorer regions has clear economic and political justification. Nevertheless, preserving familiar allocations while squeezing newer priorities would undermine leaders’ repeated promises to strengthen European independence.

Energy offers perhaps the clearest example of why spending decisions and structural reform must advance together.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told MEPs that dependence on imported fossil fuels and the absence of a genuine European energy union were weakening Europe. Costa emphasised affordable production and modernised electricity grids.

The implication is significant. Industrial subsidies cannot indefinitely compensate for an energy system that leaves European manufacturers facing persistently high costs. Cross-border connections, infrastructure investment and better market integration therefore belong at the centre of competitiveness policy.

Von der Leyen also pressed governments to complete the single market and avoid making European rules more complicated through national implementation. Her argument highlights a limitation of the budget debate: additional money cannot, by itself, remove regulatory fragmentation.

The same distinction applies to China. The Commission president described heavily subsidised Chinese competitors and promised action on dependencies, supply chains and market access. Such measures require coherent enforcement and political resolve alongside investment.

Ukraine adds a security imperative that cannot readily be postponed. Costa linked Ukrainian and European security, while MEPs warned about the consequences of weakening support. Long-term commitments require predictable financing rather than recurring emergency bargains.

But the budget dispute also concerns who controls the money.

As EU Today’s reporting on regional concerns explained, local leaders fear that restructuring could concentrate investment decisions in national capitals, weakening regional influence and potentially widening disparities.

That warning deserves attention. A larger European budget would not automatically produce more balanced development. Allocation rules, accountability and local participation will help determine whether spending strengthens cohesion or reinforces existing advantages.

New revenue sources could ease pressure on national contributions, but they cannot make financing politically painless. Costs ultimately fall somewhere, and governments must explain the distribution honestly.

The central challenge is therefore broader than securing agreement on a headline figure. Europe needs a settlement that protects essential commitments, finances credible common priorities and demonstrates results.

MEPs are right to demand resources consistent with Europe’s responsibilities. Governments are entitled to demand discipline. The failure would be a compromise that satisfies neither requirement: expensive enough to provoke domestic opposition, yet too fragmented to provide the strategic capacity Europe’s leaders insist is indispensable.

Main Image: Denis LOMME: © European Union 2025 – Source : EP

University students, and those in other forms of higher education, will be protesting today in front of the government’s headquarters, at Campus XX1, against the proposal in the 2027 State

The post Students protest against proposal to unfreeze tuition fees appeared first on Portugal Resident.

Romania has formed a new government after six months of political deadlock, with parliament approving a minority administration led by independent diplomat Luca Niculescu on Tuesday, 20 October. The vote brings an end to repeated failed attempts to establish an executive, although the new prime minister faces considerable uncertainty over his government’s parliamentary support.

Niculescu secured 280 votes in favour and 58 against, comfortably exceeding the 233 required for confirmation. His ministers were sworn in before President Nicuşor Dan at the Cotroceni Palace in Bucharest later that evening, formally ending the prolonged government formation process.

The new administration comprises 18 ministers, including two delegated ministers. The Social Democratic Party (PSD) controls the majority of portfolios, while independent specialists hold several important positions, including finance and foreign affairs.

A government built on temporary parliamentary support

The appointment represents a political success for President Dan, who nominated Niculescu on 5 October following three unsuccessful attempts to assemble a functioning government.

EU Today reported earlier this month on Niculescu’s nomination, which followed the collapse of previous negotiations and growing pressure on Romania’s political institutions.

The new cabinet is heavily dependent on agreements between parties that have frequently disagreed over economic policy and public spending. Although the parliamentary vote demonstrated sufficient support for its installation, the arrangement does not provide the government with a permanent majority.

The National Liberal Party (PNL) and the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR) supported the investiture while remaining outside the administration.

The arrangement gives Niculescu an opportunity to govern, but each major legislative proposal will require continued cooperation between parties with competing priorities.

The Social Democrats, who hold 11 of the ministerial positions, will exercise substantial influence over domestic policy, particularly decisions involving public-sector spending, welfare and taxation.

Budget deficit presents immediate challenge

Romania’s public finances represent the government’s most urgent problem.

The previous administration, led by Ilie Bolojan, collapsed in May following unpopular austerity measures. Political opposition to fiscal consolidation has complicated efforts to stabilise the budget and meet Romania’s commitments under the European Union’s fiscal framework.

Niculescu has indicated that addressing the deficit will be an immediate priority. Finance Minister Alexandru Nazare, appointed as an independent, faces the task of establishing a credible budget programme without provoking another parliamentary crisis.

The choices are politically difficult. Spending reductions risk resistance from public-sector employees and households already affected by higher living costs, while substantial tax increases could place further pressure on businesses and consumption.

Failure to establish a credible fiscal programme would prolong uncertainty over Romania’s borrowing requirements and its ability to comply with European budgetary obligations.

Brussels has a direct interest in the outcome. Romania remains subject to EU fiscal oversight, and the European Commission will assess whether the new administration’s financial plans are consistent with the country’s obligations.

The government’s credibility will depend on whether its parliamentary supporters are prepared to approve the measures that fiscal consolidation requires.

European funds and political credibility

The change of government also comes at a sensitive moment in Romania’s relationship with European institutions.

Romania has faced scrutiny over reforms linked to the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility, particularly legislation concerning public integrity and institutional accountability.

EU Today previously examined the European Commission’s assessment of Romania’s integrity legislation and its implications for recovery funding.

Although the EU recovery programme reached its principal implementation deadline in August, outstanding assessments and financial decisions continue to carry consequences for national budgets.

A functioning government is therefore important not only for domestic legislation but also for negotiations with Brussels over fiscal commitments, investment and the wider EU budget.

Romania must also address longer-term weaknesses in public administration, infrastructure financing and the implementation of European legislation.

Political stability remains uncertain

Niculescu takes office against the background of Romania’s unusually turbulent political history since the annulment of the 2024 presidential election amid allegations of Russian interference.

The subsequent institutional disputes damaged confidence in the political system and contributed to the fragmentation of parliamentary support.

Opposition parties, including the nationalist Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), are positioned to challenge the government’s legitimacy and economic measures as the administration begins work.

Romania’s strategic importance extends beyond its domestic political difficulties. As an EU and NATO member bordering Ukraine and Moldova, it plays a substantial role in Black Sea security, military logistics and regional infrastructure.

Prolonged instability in Bucharest has therefore affected a country whose decisions carry consequences for European security and cross-border economic cooperation.

For the new prime minister, the immediate objective is to translate Tuesday’s parliamentary majority into support for legislation. His first serious test will come when the cabinet presents the fiscal measures that its supporters have so far struggled to agree upon.

The parliamentary vote has ended Romania’s government formation crisis. It has not resolved the disagreements that produced it.

Budget watchdog UTAO (full title: Technical Budget Support Unit) is querying the government’s forecasts for employment growth and prices in 2027, highlighting discrepancies with recent data. In its analysis of

The post Budget watchdog queries government’s 2027 forecasts for employment, prices  appeared first on Portugal Resident.

MEPs have put themselves on a collision course with EU governments by rejecting plans for a 17-percent cut in foreign spending – instead demanding additional spending worth €25bn. 

Earlier this month, the Irish government, which holds the six-month rotating EU council presidency, proposed that €38bn of cuts be made from the ‘Global Europe’ heading, which covers foreign aid, as part of an overall package of €141bn of cuts to the seven-year EU budget, known as the multi-annual financial framework (MFF). 

But in a vote on Monday evening (19 October), the European Parliament’s development committee instead backed a dedicated minimum budget of €25bn for humanitarian aid, as well as dedicated budget lines for a Gaza reconstruction fund and for candidate countries. Put together, that would mean a €25bn increase on the EU Commission’s original budget of €200bn for the Global Europe heading. 

The position agreed by MEPs, by a 61-to-34 vote margin, will eventually form the basis of negotiations between MEPs and ministers when EU governments agree their position on the budget. 

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

European Union governments have agreed a negotiating position on new agricultural market rules intended to take effect under the bloc’s 2028–2034 budget, advancing reforms to support arrangements for farmers while leaving the most contentious financial questions unresolved.

The Council approved its partial negotiating mandate on Monday, 19 October, covering changes to the Common Market Organisation regulation, which governs agricultural markets across the European Union.

The proposals include new arrangements for wine producers, protein crops and oilseeds, revised marketing standards, changes to the EU school food programme and provisions intended to improve preparedness for agricultural market disruptions.

However, the agreement does not settle future funding allocations or the broader structure of agricultural subsidies, which remain under negotiation as EU governments attempt to reconcile farming expenditure with competing demands for defence, industrial investment and regional development.

Agricultural markets under review

The Council’s negotiating position retains much of the European Commission’s original proposal while introducing amendments intended to accommodate national differences in agricultural production.

Under the proposed arrangements, sector-specific interventions would become mandatory in several areas, including beekeeping, fruit and vegetables and, under certain circumstances, wine production.

The Council has also proposed flexibility for countries where particular sectors are absent or relatively undeveloped.

For the wine industry, governments would be able to seek exemptions from certain obligations where national circumstances justify different arrangements.

This would allow the framework to retain common European rules while avoiding requirements that would be inappropriate for member states with little or no domestic wine production.

Sectoral interventions form part of the mechanisms through which the EU supports agricultural markets and producer organisations. They can cover measures intended to improve competitiveness, manage production and strengthen farmers’ commercial position.

New provisions for protein crops

The Council has endorsed the establishment of a separate sector for protein crops and oilseeds, replacing existing provisions covering dried fodder.

The objective is to encourage domestic production and reduce dependence on imported agricultural inputs, particularly crops used in animal feed and food production.

European livestock producers rely on protein-rich feed ingredients, including soyabeans, that are often sourced internationally.

Greater domestic production could reduce exposure to fluctuations in global commodity prices, transport costs and disruptions to international supply chains.

Under the Council’s proposal, member states would be encouraged to recognise producer organisations specialising in protein crops and oilseeds.

Such organisations can help farmers coordinate production, marketing and investment, although the effectiveness of the proposed measures will depend on how they are implemented nationally.

The proposals follow broader EU efforts to improve supply security in sectors extending from agricultural inputs to critical industrial materials.

School food and product labelling

The negotiating mandate also preserves the EU school scheme, which provides support for the distribution of fruit, vegetables and milk to schoolchildren.

Under the proposed framework, the programme would move from a school-year financing cycle to a calendar-year system, with transitional provisions intended to prevent disruption during implementation.

The Council has maintained the Commission’s objective of encouraging healthier eating habits by limiting products containing high levels of free sugars and fats.

The proposal also opens the possibility of additional marketing standards for several agricultural products, including protein crops, beef, pork, sheepmeat, goatmeat and rice.

These standards could provide consumers with more detailed information about product origins, subject to the final legislation.

Such measures would also have implications for producers and food businesses, which would need to comply with any new requirements concerning classification, marketing and labelling.

The Council additionally supports the harmonisation of rules covering industrial hemp, while retaining safeguards concerning seed certification and the permitted level of tetrahydrocannabinol.

Farming subsidies remain contested

The agricultural market agreement forms part of negotiations over the next Common Agricultural Policy, which will operate within the EU’s new seven-year financial framework.

Under the Commission’s proposed budget structure, several funding streams, including agricultural and cohesion programmes, would be brought together within national and regional partnership plans.

The restructuring has encountered opposition from governments and agricultural interests concerned that farming could lose protected access to EU funding.

As EU Today previously reported, 17 member states have called for agricultural and regional development expenditure to be protected against further reductions.

The Council’s latest position addresses how agricultural markets should operate rather than determining the size of the financial support available to them.

A separate debate concerns the conditions for receiving direct farm payments, including the definition of an active farmer and the degree of discretion granted to national governments.

Those questions remain central to the continuing CAP negotiations, which are due to return to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26–27 October.

Negotiations move to Parliament

The Council’s partial mandate now provides a basis for negotiations with the European Parliament on the agricultural market provisions.

The legislation will still require agreement between the institutions, while its financing will depend on the eventual settlement of the 2028–2034 budget.

Governments must also complete negotiations on the wider CAP framework, including direct income support and the distribution of responsibility between Brussels and national administrations.

The market agreement reached on 19 October therefore establishes important elements of the proposed agricultural rules, but leaves unresolved the level of financial support available to European farmers after 2027.

The European Parliament has demanded €225 billion for the European Union’s foreign policy and development programmes between 2028 and 2034, challenging proposals by member states to reduce spending under the bloc’s next long-term budget.

The Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Development committees approved their negotiating position on the Global Europe Instrument on Monday, 19 October, by 63 votes to 27, with five abstentions. The proposed allocation represents an increase of €25 billion over the European Commission’s original €200 billion proposal.

The decision comes as negotiations over the wider 2028–2034 EU budget have become increasingly contentious, with Germany and several other net contributors opposing higher expenditure while Brussels faces mounting demands for defence, industrial investment, enlargement and support for Ukraine.

Parliament rejects proposed reductions

Under the position adopted by the parliamentary committees, at least €25 billion would be reserved for humanitarian assistance. MEPs also want dedicated funding for reconstruction in Gaza and financial support for countries seeking EU membership.

The committees are proposing that 20 per cent of official development assistance should be directed towards human development, alongside stronger provisions covering democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Global Europe is intended to consolidate several existing financing instruments into a single framework governing much of the Union’s external expenditure. The programme would finance activities ranging from development cooperation and humanitarian assistance to economic partnerships and support for countries preparing to join the EU.

The Commission introduced the original €200 billion proposal in July 2025. However, subsequent negotiations among member states have raised the prospect of substantial reductions.

Germany, the Netherlands and several Nordic countries have argued that the next budget must reflect the financial constraints facing national governments. Their objections have complicated efforts to accommodate additional spending on European security and economic competitiveness.

The European Parliament has taken a different position, maintaining that reducing external expenditure would restrict the Union’s ability to operate internationally when European security and economic interests increasingly depend on developments beyond its borders.

Ukraine and enlargement funding

The parliamentary proposal would preserve support for Ukraine while seeking to prevent assistance connected with Russia’s invasion from reducing resources available to other partner countries.

Ukraine’s reconstruction, institutional reforms and integration with European markets will require substantial financing over the coming years. However, the precise allocation will depend on negotiations over the wider budget and the financing arrangements eventually approved.

For candidate countries, MEPs want clearer incentives linking EU assistance to progress on political and economic reforms. The proposed framework would also provide Brussels with greater powers to suspend funding where democratic standards, human rights or judicial independence deteriorate.

A separate provision would permit the Commission to suspend payments where partner countries seriously fail to meet obligations concerning the readmission of their nationals.

That measure reflects the growing connection between the EU’s development policy and its migration objectives. Brussels has increasingly sought cooperation on returns and border management as part of agreements with countries receiving European assistance.

The committees have also called for stronger parliamentary supervision of Global Europe, including more detailed reporting by the Commission and regular discussions with the commissioners responsible for implementation.

Difficult negotiations ahead

The financial disagreement extends well beyond external policy. The overall seven-year budget remains contested, particularly over agricultural subsidies, regional development funds, defence investment and repayment of borrowing undertaken during the coronavirus pandemic.

As EU Today previously reported, a group of 17 member states has opposed reductions in agricultural and cohesion spending, adding further pressure to negotiations.

The Parliament’s proposed €225 billion allocation has not been agreed by governments and does not constitute an approved spending commitment.

The committees also approved a mandate for negotiations with the Council, although their position still requires endorsement by the full Parliament, provisionally expected in November.

Meanwhile, member states must settle their own negotiating position, including the financial ceilings governing the programme.

The eventual settlement will determine how much Brussels can spend on development cooperation, humanitarian operations and international partnerships after 2027, and how those commitments can be reconciled with the EU’s expanding domestic financial obligations.