Discussing a seven-year budget for a political union of 27 countries was never going to be an easy task, but the ongoing economic and financial crisis may have made it a little bit harder.

To be fair, previous EU budget discussions were also marked by disagreements among member states, and between them and EU institutions, only for a compromise to be reached.

This time round, however, the crisis will have stretched member states’ willingness to reach a compromise to the limit. At a time when keeping deficits down is a particular struggle, countries will be more reluctant to let go of any benefits, and less willing to accept measures which, they perceive, will benefit others at their expense.

Governments, obviously, would also be reluctant to lose face locally, which they are likely to if they are perceived to have foregone the national interest in favour of the European interest.

So France, for instance, will invariably defend the Common Agricultural Policy, of which it is the greatest recipient. Malta will obviously oppose any introduction of an EU-wide financial transaction tax over fears it would hinder its important financial services sector. The UK and Germany will seek a cut to the Commission’s proposed €1.025 trillion budget, while others believe the amount is the absolute minimum acceptable.

If we go through all 27 countries – as well as the European Parliament, whose approval is also necessary – there will be a number of issues where every possible action will face strong opposition.

Something has to give for an agreement to take place, and it remains to be seen whether enough countries will be willing to make concessions.

One consolation is that there are measures to ensure that the EU does not shut down if no budget is agreed upon. The worst case scenario would see the EU run on short-term budgets based on the previous seven-year budget until an agreement is reached.

This, however, would still make it much harder to secure EU funding for projects, especially for long-term projects. Malta’s plans to utilise EU funds to build a gas pipeline to Sicily would almost certainly be affected, for instance.

Furthermore, the multi-annual budget also offers a relatively rare opportunity to substantially reform the EU’s spending priorities and programmes. The 2007-2013 budget tackled a different situation than the one the next one will have to take into account, and priorities will have to shift accordingly.

The Commission’s proposed budget for 2014-2020, unsurprisingly, has the stated aim of reviving economic growth and boosting investment, especially in poorer regions. The details of the proposal may be up for debate, but the aim is clearly one which the EU should work for.

The crisis has shown how interlinked European economies are, and how problems in a sector or region may create havoc elsewhere.

So as a crucial summit on the budget draws closer – and as the need to address financial woes persist – it is up to member states to show just how united the European Union can be in the face of a common threat. The alternative may be unthinkable.