1. A tax revolution in preparation
Brussels plans to integrate a new own resource to the EU budget — via an increase in excise duties on tobacco. The tax would apply to both cigarettes and alternative nicotine products (e-liquids, heated cigarettes, nicotine pouches), with the option of an increase of up to +139% for certain categories.
The objective: to strengthen the European Union's financial capacity without relying exclusively on national contributions. The Commission justifies this measure by the need to finance strategic priorities—defense, ecological transition, debt—and to act on public health by reducing harmful consumption.
2. Public health and budgetary pressure: double justification
On the one hand, more expensive tobacco reduces consumption, especially among young people, and helps limit the health burden – nearly 700 avoidable deaths per year in the EU.
On the other hand, integrating the tax into the EU budget would aim to create a reliable source of funding, capable of supporting common ambitions without directly weighing on the finances of the Member States.
3. Swedish counter-offensive: defense of fiscal sovereignty
But the proposal directly clashes with Sweden. Its Finance Minister, Elisabeth Svantesson, called the initiative "completely unacceptable." She said that heavily taxing products like snus—the Swedish alternative to smoked tobacco—and shifting those taxes to Brussels constitutes an attack on national sovereignty.
"The revenue should go to Sweden, not to the EU bureaucracy," she said publicly.
Sweden, where smoking prevalence has fallen to 5% thanks in part to snus, represents a European model of harm reduction — a model that it intends to preserve.
4. Disagreements at EU level
Besides Sweden, countries such as Italy, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria are positioning themselves as reserve countries, citing regulatory, sovereignty and prevention issues.
The implementation of such a reform requires theunanimity of the 27 states, which makes its adoption delicate.
5. Taxing all nicotine products: a no-nonsense approach?
Some experts warn of the counterproductive effect of a uniform policy: they fear that lower-risk products—particularly snus and certain vapes—will be excessively penalized, to the detriment of the harm reduction strategy.
By calling for differentiation, they point out that less harmful alternatives can help reluctant smokers quit.
6. A question of sovereignty and tax fairness
At the heart of the debate, two issues collide:
-
National sovereignty : each State wishes to maintain control of its fiscal policy, particularly on public health.
-
European efficiency : Brussels aims to modernise and harmonise tobacco policies at the level of the common market, while securing the financing of its programmes.
Conclusion
The proposal to use tobacco taxes as own resource to the Union invites us to rethink the role of Brussels vis-à-vis the States on competences long considered national.
It raises a dilemma: how to reconcile common ambition, social justice, public health and respect for national specificities?
Brussels will have to find a compromise - perhaps with exemptions for lower-risk products - to calm reluctance and complete an EU budget that is being redefined.
