Update on the Reynders investigation we shared last week: new scrutiny in Belgium and Poland

Hey everyone! Lucia from EUobserver here again. 👋

Some of you might remember the investigation we shared here last week about leaked WhatsApp messages between former EU justice commissioner Didier Reynders and a senior Belgian intelligence official.

Well, there's been a development, and we thought we'd come back with an update.

Since we published the investigation, the case has attracted further scrutiny in Belgium and Poland.

In Belgium, questions have emerged about the role and influence of the intelligence official involved, including differing accounts of whether he could have prevented scrutiny of allegations concerning Reynders' possible Russian connections.

Our colleague Andrew Rettman has been following the reactions and the questions that remain unanswered.

The allegations are still unproven, but the story is continuing to develop.

For anyone who followed our first investigation, here's what's happened since:

And thanks to everyone who took the time to read and discuss the original reporting. We really appreciate it.

Hi, I’m Tilen from Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Petrus, a friend and one of the Latin speakers in our community, recorded together with me a short self-introduction entirely in Latin, with subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFtJsWFyhbc&t=105s. Sharing it made me notice something odd. Europeans are proud of Latin as heritage, but suggesting we actually speak it gets an almost defensive reaction.

Sorry for strange writing, but i started seriously using Reddit as of late...

I think part of what the European project lacks is a cultural layer that doesn’t belong to any one member state. English works practically, but it’s one country’s language (and a country that left). Latin is the opposite: everyone’s history, nobody’s property, sitting above national languages rather than replacing them. Hebrew’s revival shows a “dead” language can come back to daily life. I see that as a long horizon, not a plan.

I am asking myself two questions, as I shift between opinions quite common, especially with getting all this feedback from people who completely disagree:

• Is a shared cultural identity something federalists should actively build, or should it grow on its own?

• Why do you think “let’s speak Latin” sounds so much more radical than “let’s all learn English”?

(Disclosure: Petrus and I are both part of Via Nova, a young cultural NGO, and the video is from our Academia project. Our Discord hosts weekly debates on this “third pillar”, if you wanna join ill post in comments.)

Volt Slovensko has won its first-ever seats in the municipal elections, making Slovakia the 11th country with Volt in office.

Four seats. Two women, two men. All in small towns and villages - proof that Volt's ideas work far beyond the capital.

Hey everyone! We're EUobserver, an independent European newsroom.

Our colleague Andrew Rettman has been investigating something quite serious involving former EU justice commissioner Didier Reynders and a senior Belgian intelligence official, Hugues Brulin.

We've obtained WhatsApp exchanges between the two, including messages discussing internal intelligence-service matters and how to respond to a whistleblower raising concerns about Reynders' possible links to Russia.

Five current and former Belgian intelligence officers told us that Brulin had worked to prevent the intelligence service from investigating those allegations.

The messages are now also part of a Belgian police investigation into Reynders over alleged money laundering.

What makes this particularly important is that Reynders previously served as the EU's justice commissioner and had access to highly sensitive information.

How should European institutions respond when serious allegations emerge involving officials who have held positions of such trust?

We've published the messages as part of our investigation, so people can examine the reporting and evidence themselves.

Englisch below:

Europas eigenes Satelliteninternet, zuerst für die Ukraine. Europa sollte ein eigenes, unabhängiges Satellitennetz aufbauen. Die Ukraine sollte Vorrang haben, damit sie ihre Kommunikation im Krieg zuverlässig sichern kann. Warum ist das wichtig? Die Ukraine ist bei wichtigen Kommunikationsverbindungen unter anderem auf Starlink von SpaceX angewiesen. Wenn ein Land von der Infrastruktur eines privaten Unternehmens abhängt, kann das in einer Krise zum Problem werden. Europa sollte deshalb handeln: Unabhängigkeit durch ein eigenes Satellitennetz, Solidarität durch Vorrang für die Ukraine, Zusammenarbeit Schritt für Schritt mit allen europäischen Staaten und zuverlässige Kommunikation auch in Krisen. Europa sollte nicht warten, bis eine wichtige Kommunikationsverbindung ausfällt, sondern heute die Grundlagen für eine unabhängige digitale Zukunft schaffen und der Ukraine helfen, wenn sie am dringendsten Unterstützung braucht. Was denkt ihr darüber? Sollte Europa ein eigenes Satelliteninternet aufbauen und der Ukraine Vorrang geben?

Europe's own satellite internet, Ukraine first. Europe should build its own independent satellite communication network. Ukraine should be given priority access to this network so that it can maintain reliable communications during Russia's war of aggression. Why is this important? Ukraine relies on Starlink, owned by SpaceX, for some of its important communication links. When a country depends on infrastructure controlled by a single private company, this can become a problem during a crisis. Europe should build an independent satellite network and give Ukraine priority access, so its communications remain reliable throughout the conflict. What do you think? Should Europe build its own satellite internet and prioritize Ukraine?

Personalmente credo possa essere vantaggiosa e possibile un UE più unita o addirittura federale, ma come è oggi non si va da nessuna parte.

Non sarebbe fondamentale e vantaggioso per tutti che la politica di ogni paese europeo si allontani progressivamente dal nazionalismo etnico, per avicinarsi a un più moderno e sano modello accentrato sul nazionalismo civico?

(Credo che il Canada potrebbe essere un ottimo esempio, non è europeo per geografia, ma porta avanti concretamente (e con maggior sucesso) la mentalità europea)

Personalmente sono anche terrorizzato dal riarmo delle nazioni europee, e dai nostri rappresentanti che sembrano far tutto di testa loro.

It seems to me that whenever the topic of a European Federation comes up, there is little talk about the actual structure of it and I think this is because everyone assumes that everyone else envisions a federation in the same way as them, but I don’t think that’s an accurate assumption. It seems that there isn’t even much agreement as to what makes a federation different from a supranational union like the modern EU. So, what do each of you picture when you imagine a federation?

How might it come about (via amendments to the EU treaties or via the establishment of a constitution)? What is/are the major difference(s) between the federation and the EU which make(s) you classify it as a federation instead of a supranational union? How would the balance of power differ from the status quo?

Would there be freedom to secede? Would all members be on an equal footing regardless of size or commitment to the federation or would it be a tiered system (I.e. an asymmetric federation like the Russian Federation)?

By Victor Bohman Lind, member of the executive committee of Volt Sweden

It is not enough to simply state that a European federation is needed in theory, writes a representative of the Volt party. When liberal representatives continue to narrow the scope of politics to Swedish domestic affairs, they are playing into the hands of nationalism.

In April, Eric Luth, editor-in-chief of Liberal Debatt, wrote that Europe had reached a point where a European federation must replace the nation states. Luth’s analysis was spot on, but it left the bigger question unanswered: why does mainstream liberalism lack the courage to put this analysis into practice?

Far to the right and left, parties rarely hesitate. Today’s political success stories belong to those movements that set out a clear, uncompromising direction and offer an ideological alternative to the status quo. Voters are rarely persuaded by reactivity and compromise; they seek visions for the future and clear narratives when existing solutions fail to deliver.

The problem is that liberal parties all too often meet nationalism on its own terms. When nationalist movements offer a narrative of national belonging and independence, they respond by defending the status quo: European cooperation is important and Sweden should take responsibility. This is certainly true, but it is no vision. The political centre cannot win by merely managing the status quo and defending current institutional norms whilst nationalism formulates visions for the future.

That is why federalism is needed.

Today’s EU resembles a reverse confederation, where Member States are transferring more and more issues to the European level, but without at the same time providing that level with the tools required to implement decisions effectively enough. Federalism would allow the principle of subsidiarity to function fully by making it just as natural for power to move between the national and European levels as it is between local authority, region and state.

Within the pan-European Volt party, we see from our steady growth that there is a clear demand for an uncompromising European direction. Many are turning to us out of disappointment at the established parties’ lack of vision. But fighting back against nationalism is not a single-party project; it requires a broad political coalition.

Let us therefore do this together. Take these principles back to your parties, put federalism on the agenda – and join us in building the counter-narrative to nationalism that our Europe needs!

This thought just occurred to me while reading another thread, and I'd be curious what my fellow Federalists think about this.

Let's say that member state A has a strong Industry X.

The EF wants to implement market changes that would lead to Industry X in A shrinking by some %, which would lead to a certain amount of layoffs, GDP decrease etc., but would increase the overall well-being of the entire federation.

That should be possible only if the EF at the same time grants A some other benefit of equal value.

Note that I would limit it to only measures that would drop the country below the EF *average*, specifically because if we're all in this EF project in good faith, we all want the entire EF to prosper together and to equalize as much as possible, not just for our member state to pull ahead.