MCC Brussels Podcast

In this episode: Is the Democracy Shield really about protecting elections from foreign interference, or about policing dissent at home? Ten years after Brexit, did the EU learn from Britain’s revolt, or double down on the federalist habits that caused it? And why is Brussels talking to the Taliban - realpolitik at last, or geopolitical naivety dressed up as diplomacy?

Host Jacob Reynolds is joined by Frank Furedi, MCC Brussels’ executive director, and Dr Philipp Siegert, our deputy research director, to discuss free speech, sovereignty, Brexit, migration, and the increasingly brittle politics of the Brussels establishment.

 First, the panel turns to the EU’s Democracy Shield, after a European Parliament committee backed proposals to strengthen the bloc’s powers over disinformation, media, elections and so-called internal threats. Philipp Siegert argues that the danger lies in moving from protecting democratic processes to managing political outcomes. Frank Furedi warns that the language of democratic protection is being used to justify a new kind of censorship - one that presents itself as the very opposite of censorship.

 The second topic is Brexit, ten years after the vote that shook Britain and Brussels alike. Frank argues that 2016 marked a turning point in European politics, exposing the weakness of legacy parties and giving new force to questions of sovereignty, patriotism and democratic self-government. The panel asks whether the EU learnt anything from Brexit, or whether its real lesson was to prevent voters from ever doing something similar again.

Finally, the episode turns to Brussels hosting Taliban representatives for talks on returning Afghan migrants. The panel discusses the need for realpolitik in foreign affairs, but also the risks of giving international legitimacy to a regime that remains deeply hostile to European values and interests

Follow MCC Brussels on social media:
https://twitter.com/MCC_Brussels
https://facebook.com/MCCBrussels
https://linkedin.com/company/mcc-brussels/

website:
https://brussels.mcc.hu

In this episode: is Péter Magyar restoring Hungarian democracy, or using constitutional power to remove his main rival? Does the export controls and shutdown of Anthropic’s Mythos model show how desperately far behind the EU is on cutting-edge technology?  And has the EU Transparency Register become a neutral accountability tool, or a bureaucratic weapon against dissenting voices in Brussels?
Host Jacob Reynolds is joined by Richard Schenk and Javier Villamor, Brussels-based EU/NATO correspondent for The European Conservative.
First, the panel turns to Hungary, where the new Tisza government has pushed through a retroactive two-term limit on prime ministers. Supporters call it a democratic safeguard after years of Fidesz rule. Critics see it as Lex Orbán: a constitutional manoeuvre designed to keep Viktor Orbán from returning to power, while also putting pressure on institutions linked to the previous government.
The second topic is artificial intelligence. The row over Anthropic’s Mythos model raises a brutal question for Europe: what happens when the most powerful AI systems are controlled elsewhere? Jacob, Richard and Javier discuss whether the EU has spent the past three years regulating a technology it does not lead, and whether Europe’s real problem is not just investment, but energy, chips, talent, scale and regulatory culture.
Finally, the episode turns to MCC Brussels itself, after its suspension from the EU Transparency Register. The panel asks whether this is merely a technical dispute over registration rules, or part of a broader pattern in which Brussels uses procedure, paperwork and access rules to police the boundaries of acceptable debate.

In this MCC Brussels Deep Dive, John O’Brien speaks to Professor Samuele Furfari, one of Europe’s most experienced voices on energy policy.
Furfari spent decades inside the European Commission working on energy and sustainable development. His warning is blunt: Europe’s energy crisis did not begin with the war in Ukraine. It began when EU policymakers abandoned the old priority of cheap, abundant and secure energy, and replaced it with a decarbonisation-first agenda.
For decades, European energy policy understood a basic truth: prosperity depends on power. Industry, jobs, living standards and national security all require reliable and affordable energy. But according to Furfari, Brussels has increasingly treated energy not as the foundation of growth, but as a problem to be reduced, regulated and morally denounced.
John and Professor Furfari discuss how this mentality took hold, why Europe has become so vulnerable, and whether the EU has learnt the wrong lesson from the energy shocks of recent years.
This is a conversation about more than bills. It is about prosperity, sovereignty, industry and whether Europe still has the seriousness to keep the lights on.

In this episode, is Belgium becoming a warning sign for the rest of Europe? Has the EU’s obsession with digital regulation made Europeans technologically weaker? And are American conservatives right to call out Europe’s migration crisis, or is Europe being talked down to again?
Host Jacob Reynolds is joined by MCC’s Richard Schenk and Lennert Van Hauwermeiren from the Flemish Institute for Policy and Strategy to discuss migration, state authority, digital control and the growing tensions between Europe and America.
First, the panel turns to Belgium, where riots in Brussels, unrest on the coast, migrant-smuggling routes and concerns about policing raise a blunt question: can the Belgian state still enforce the law? Lennert argues that Europe’s liberal elites have become reluctant to use legitimate force, while Richard places Belgium’s problems in the wider context of political fragmentation, identity politics and the weakening of state authority.
The second topic is the EU’s latest push for “digital sovereignty”. As Apple’s new Siri features are held back in the EU, the panel asks whether Brussels is building a serious tech future or simply regulating Europe into irrelevance. Richard and Lennert discuss the AI Act, the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act and the EU’s habit of confusing control with innovation.
Finally, the episode turns to Pete Hegseth’s D-Day speech and his criticism of Europe’s migration policy. The panel considers whether American conservatives are right to raise the alarm, whether European countries need their own solutions, and why Europe must separate shared civilisation questions from national interests.

In this episode: Is Trump’s 4 July deadline a tariff threat, or a demand for reciprocity from Brussels? Can “remigration” be defined as lawful return policy without sliding into something more dangerous? And do the Paris riots after PSG’s Champions League victory expose a deeper crisis of law, order and elite denial in Europe’s cities?
Host Jacob Reynolds is joined by Richard Schenk and Paul McCarthy, Senior Research Fellow in European Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
First, the panel turns to the latest tensions in EU-US relations. Trump’s deadline for Brussels to implement the trade deal has put pressure back on the European Union, but the argument goes well beyond tariffs. Paul McCarthy explains how Washington sees Europe’s non-tariff barriers, defence dependency and digital regulations, while Richard Schenk argues that Brussels’ regulatory machine is damaging European business and deepening the transatlantic divide.
The second topic is remigration. After a week of new initiatives and debate on the European right, Jacob, Richard and Paul discuss what the term actually means, where legitimate deportation policy ends, and why migration politics in Europe has become so explosive. They examine the difference between illegal migration, legal migration, naturalisation and criminal deportations, and ask whether European governments have created a system in which return has become almost impossible.
Finally, the episode turns to the riots in Paris and elsewhere in France after PSG’s Champions League win. The panel discusses the collapse of law and order, the disconnect between official messaging and citizens’ experience, and whether European elites are willing to describe the reality of disorder in their own cities.