Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has announced that Hungary will only support the European Union’s proposed financial framework for 2028–2035 if the bloc releases all currently frozen EU funds to Hungary. In his speech, Orban criticized the EU leadership for making poor deals with the United States and called for a change in leadership. The EU Commission has put forward a budget proposal of two trillion euros—considerably larger than the current framework. This has set the stage for contentious negotiations among the 27 member governments, all of whom must unanimously approve the budget. Germany, in particular, has criticized the proposal for being out of proportion and lacking their support.

As I observe this unfolding spectacle, I am compelled to speak out with great urgency. What we have here is another tragic illustration of how central planning, irrespective of its intentions, leads inevitably to perennial conflict and opportunism among member states. The European Union, under the illusion that vast budgets and bureaucratic oversight can smooth economic disparities, continues to concentrate ever more power into the hands of distant authorities—authorities whose wisdom and incentives rarely align with those of the individuals and communities they claim to serve.

Orban’s maneuver—tying Hungary’s support to the release of withheld funds—demonstrates how, in a centrally planned federation, each politician is incentivized to act not as a participant in a grand harmonious design, but as a negotiator for spoils from the common treasury. Is it any wonder that these summits devolve into exercises in bargaining and brinkmanship? Every increase in the size of the common purse invites further politicking and corrosion of the very solidarity these plans are supposed to foster!

One cannot help but notice, too, the ever-growing scale and ambition of these plans. The proposed sum—two trillion euros!—exceeds by far what reason or respect for subsidiarity would counsel. Who amongst the planners can honestly claim to know the best allocation for such an immense fund, stretching across so many disparate peoples and needs? It is precisely this pretense of knowledge, this faith in the wisdom of the center, that has been the ruin of so many experiments with state-led prosperity.

And, inevitably, there is dissatisfaction among the greatest contributors—Germany foremost. How long until the productive states grow weary of subsidizing what increasingly appears as a permanent redistribution, untethered from any genuine gains in liberty or self-responsibility? The seeds of discord are sown each time the logic of centralization is allowed to triumph over the free association and decentralized experimentation that made Europe’s civilization so remarkable.

This should be a moment not for fresh rounds of haggling over an even larger budget, but for radical reconsideration. Return decision-making to the lowest possible level; entrust resources to those who create them; and cease this constant expansion of bureaucratic ambition. Only then might Europe rediscover the dynamism that arises, not from the top-down impositions of experts, but from the undirected collaboration of free and responsible individuals.