The coalition against Ursula von der Leyen’s single budget continues to grow in strength.

The European Commission president’s own European People’s Party (EPP) is not in favour of her scheme to bundle all European funding, including the CAP, into a single envelope for each country.

The EPP’s parliamentary group went public with its opposition on Thursday. That’s not nothing, as they are also the largest single grouping in the parliament.

It’s fair to say the pathway to realisation for the single budget proposal is much narrower as a result of this. Mind you, the EPP’s own official website doesn’t carry any press release or story referring to this internal opposition to von der Leyen’s grand plan. There are 188 EPP MEPs out of the 720 seats in the parliament.

About the only major figure who is staunchly standing with von der Leyen is Piotr Serafin, the European budgetary commissioner. He has a pivotal role in this instance, as the Commission’s budgetary proposals will be made in his name.

And that, like it or not, will set the agenda for debate. Serafin is the Polish commissioner, proposed by Donald Tusk, the current Polish prime minister and former president of the European council.

He is also a member of the EPP and when he met protesting farmers in Brussels, he listened and engaged, but seemed set on a single budget.

Polish election

Tusk and Poland face a defining moment next weekend. Last week’s first round of the presidential election voting process saw Tusk’s and Serafin’s party colleague Rafal Trzaskowski top the poll. He will face Karol Nawrocki in the two-person run-off on Sunday 1 June.

Nawrocki is being backed by the outgoing president Andrzej Duda and the right-wing PiS party, ousted from government by Tusk’s coalition.

There are sharp differences between the two on many issues and, as always, farming will play a key part in the debate in the closing days.

Trzaskowski, a Eurosceptic, is courting farmers angered by the extent of agricultural produce coming into the EU from Ukraine through Poland. There is no doubt that these imports have impacted on Polish farm gate prices.

He is also looking for support from the voters for the candidates who finished in third and fourth places, both of whom are politically further to his right.

The election might well echo the outcome in Romania, where the centrist pro-EU candidate holds out against the right-wing Eurosceptic candidate.

It was remarkable how the vast majority of people gathered round centrist Nicosur Dan, who surged from 21% in the first round of voting to over 53% in the run-off. His opponent, George Simion only added 5% to his first-round tally of 41% to then lose out.

It’s remarkable that in every significant election this year, the candidate closer to Donald Trump has lost out.

Australia joined Canada, Poland and Romania in rejecting far-right populism in its vote last week. The Trump trade aggression has not endeared his brand of politics to people in other countries.

It may also be the US administration’s move away from old allies, particularly the EU, and their increasing closeness to Vladimir Putin and Russia has alarmed people.

What’s the big idea?

Anyway, back to Europe and the debate around the budget. The big question on most people’s lips at the protest in Dublin was what was the reason for such a drastic change to how the operates its spending programmes.

A centralised budget rather than a ringfenced CAP holds many dangers, as articulated by Irish Farmers' Association (IFA) deputy president Alice Doyle and Irish Co-operative Organisation Society (ICOS)president Edward Carr at the IFA/ICOS protest on Tuesday.

What does the European Commission stand to gain from such a reordering of the structure? There has been much criticism of many aspects of the EU’s expenditure, not least on CAP, but no one that I ever heard called for a bundling of all expenditure. There are a few possibilities.

Perhaps it’s simply a distraction tactic. Maybe Ursula has been watching Donald Trump destroy normal political discourse with a radical assault on international diplomacy and trade, always on the offensive. And she thought that disruption deflects from debate.

By that I mean that instead of proposing extra funding for CAP and new programmes for farm supports, the IFA, ICOS, COPA and COGECA were this week reduced to an elemental fight to retain what is currently in place.

On the face of it, it might seem like a clever tactic, but if that is the reason for this radical reshape proposal, it’s a deeply cynical and manipulative one.

And if it fails - as it seems certain to if the Parliament joins the Council of Ministers, many governments and all farmers in opposition - we would immediately be back to the debate around flattening of payments and front-loading, to the scale of the CAP’s ringfenced budget and whether a 'third pillar' is needed for environmental programmes.

If this is the case, perhaps that’s why some people are talking as if Ursula von der Leyen hadn’t said anything. For instance, this week Luke Ming Flanagan made his feelings on the next CAP known, with no reference whatsoever to the single budget proposal.

He reiterated the views he expressed 12 months ago during the European election campaign, when he called for a massive increase in the per-hectare payment on the first 30 hectares, to give a payment of around €24,000 to a farmer with a 30 ha holding.

The Irish Natura and Hill Farmers' Association (INHFA), whose view of CAP would be quite closely aligned with that of Flanagan, set out its stall and again ignored the single budget concept, instead setting out a wide range of policy priorities. Maybe Vincent Roddy sees von der Leyen’s single budget proposal as a distracting tactic, one he refuses to fall for.

Meanwhile, Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA)president Denis Drennan didn’t hide his contempt for the single budget proposal, dismissing it as cynical, done in an attempt to disguise an effective reduction in one or both (CAP pillar I and II) funds.

This is the second likely reason for the single budget proposal - to blur the clarity around how much finding farmers are getting.

I won’t labour that point, as I majored on it last week. But the ever-increasing need for security and defence spending by Europe for its own protection is putting major strain on all the EU’s resources and it’s much easier to hide budgetary cuts within a single budget than a bunch of separate spending limits.

The third possible reason I see is that von der Leyen is in the business of legacy building. Perhaps she wants to be associated with a major restructuring of something central to how the European Union functions.

The fact that it’s a backward step in terms of clarity and accountability may be secondary to her ambition to build a monument to her tenure. If that is the case, it’s a clear sign that her re-election as president of the Commission was a mistake and that she is becoming increasingly autocratic.

In Dublin last Tuesday, Peter Power came out of the European Commission building to talk to farmer representatives. Power is the head of representation for the Commission in Ireland and, as such, is effectively von der Leyen’s spokesperson.

While a new appointee to this post, he is deeply experienced within the diplomatic corps of the EU. Indeed, he was chef de cabinet for Phil Hogan during the Kilkenny man’s time as both agriculture and trade commissioner.

Power is experienced in having protesting farmers on his doorstep, but I suspect he rarely has been as sympathetic to their cause. “The Commission is in listening mode,” he said.

“They’re acting like they’re not listening,” retorted Laois IFA chair Henry Burns.

Perhaps the question is less “are the Commission listening” than “who are the Commission listening to”. Time will tell.