What if ...?

Current pension policy in Germany shows how quickly reform proposals can be reassessed. On 23 June 2026, the Pension Commission presented 33 recommendations for a fundamental reform of pension provision. In early July, the governing coalition announced that it would implement the recommendations in full and without delay. Following the state election in Saxony-Anhalt, parts of the reform proposals are once again being called into question, particularly within the SPD.

But what if corresponding reform steps had already been agreed upon in a Partnership Plan and linked to the disbursement of EU funds? The abstract question of “cash for reforms” would then become a very concrete one: can EU funds be withheld if a Member State fails to implement agreed reform milestones for domestic political reasons?

This question also proved contentious among the Member States during discussions in the General Affairs Council on 16 June. Luxembourg’s Deputy Prime Minister Xavier Bettel warned against making the disbursement of EU funds conditional on the implementation of country-specific recommendations. Recommendations must not become obligations. Otherwise, Bettel argued, the EU would give populist forces the argument that decisions on areas such as labour law or pensions were no longer being taken in the Member States, but in Brussels.

Luxembourg was not alone in its concerns. During a debate among EU ambassadors in July, eleven Member States, including France, Italy, Spain and Poland, expressed concerns about the planned link between country-specific recommendations, reforms and EU funds. The extent to which the EU should influence national reform processes in this way is therefore far from politically settled.