The Fight to Rebuild European Integrity

By Tomás Díaz García

In the marble corridors of the EU institutions in Brussels, influence is the currency. But when suitcases of cash replace policy papers and security warnings turn into lobby bans, the veneer of technocratic boredom shatters. Is the European project rotting from the inside, or can its quiet guardians save it?

Brussels has long relied on a reputation for dull competence. For decades, the European quarter was seen as a fortress of bureaucracy—a place of endless committees, grey suits, and technical directives. But that image of sterile efficiency has been irrevocably stained. Over the last three years, the European Parliament has transformed from a sleepy legislative body into the backdrop for some of the continent's most shocking thriller-style dramas.

The illusion of integrity first cracked with Qatargate. This scandal saw bags of cash seized from apartments and high-ranking Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) arrested, laying bare the vulnerability of European democracy to foreign money. Yet, the threat has mutated. It is no longer just about cash-for-votes; it is about the weaponisation of access. The Huawei-gate incident earlier this year—where the Parliament was forced to trigger an unprecedented ban on lobbyists from the Chinese tech giant over security concerns—exposed a new frontline: the murky intersection where corporate espionage meets political lobbying.

These scandals are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of a systemic failure in transparency. They reveal a Parliament where "revolving doors" spin too freely and where the line between legitimate advocacy and foreign interference is dangerously thin. In this landscape of eroded trust, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has emerged from the shadows. Once considered a mere administrative auditor, OLAF has become the essential—albeit underpowered—guardian of the Union’s institutional soul, tasked with cleaning up a mess that threatens to alienate 450 million citizens.

Foreign Influence Scandals in the EU: Qatargate and Huawei-gate

Qatargate and Huawei-gate rely on different methods – bags of cash and gifts versus seemingly “normal” corporate lobbying – but both show how foreign governments and state-linked firms can penetrate the European Parliament through opaque intermediaries, gaps in ethics rules and weak oversight. In Qatargate, non-EU states such as Qatar and Morocco allegedly funnelled money and benefits to MEPs via NGOs and informal “friendship groups” in exchange for favourable stances on human rights, aviation or visa policy. Huawei-gate, by contrast, points to a hospitality-driven lobbying ecosystem in which a Chinese tech company is suspected of funding trips, perks and covert fees to influence debates on telecoms and digital regulation.

Together, these scandals reveal a similar pattern: foreign actors buying access, narrative framing and agenda-setting power rather than just single roll-call votes, and exploiting grey zones around side jobs, NGO funding and informal parliamentary networks. They also exposed how self-declaration, fragmented controls and late intervention by national prosecutors allowed signs of unexplained wealth and conflicts of interest to go unchecked, suggesting that EU-level ethics rules and enforcement still lag far behind the sophistication of modern influence operations.

OLAF, Europe’s Quiet but Essential Watchdog

OLAF was created in 1999 to protect the EU’s financial interests by investigating fraud, corruption and other illegal activities affecting the EU budget. It conducts administrative, not criminal, investigations: the office can inspect premises, analyse documents and interview staff and contractors. It may then recommend financial recovery, disciplinary action or referral to national prosecutors and, where relevant, the EPPO. However, it cannot itself prosecute or impose criminal sanctions.

In Qatargate, OLAF launched an internal investigation into the use of parliamentary allowances for assistants linked to one of the suspects. While Belgian prosecutors handled the bribery dimension, OLAF reconstructed administrative and financial irregularities that complemented criminal inquiries. The case demonstrated how high-level corruption often intersects with more technical misuse of EU funds. Huawei-gate has similarly reignited calls for closer cooperation among OLAF, the EPPO, and national prosecutors whenever suspected bribery overlaps with EU-funded travel, staff budgets, or other financial benefits.

Yet OLAF’s limitations remain clear. Its mandate is narrowly tied to financial interests, limiting its competence to investigate misconduct by MEPs that does not involve EU funds. Its recommendations are non-binding, and national authorities' follow-up is inconsistent, creating an enforcement gap. Operationally, OLAF relies heavily on member-state cooperation for inspections and access to financial data. It remains a crucial but often under-empowered component of the EU’s integrity architecture.

The European Parliament’s new rules

In response to Qatargate, the European Parliament introduced a fourteen-point reform package and updated its Rules of Procedure and Code of Conduct. The new framework tightens bans on MEPs engaging in lobbying activities, extends the mandatory publication of meetings with interest representatives and third-country diplomats, and strengthens requirements to declare outside income, assets, and any third-party-funded travel or hospitality. It also imposes stricter conflict-of-interest rules, limits unofficial MEP groupings and links participation in many events to registration in the EU Transparency Register.

On paper, these changes represent a meaningful upgrade. Yet transparency watchdogs contend that the reforms remain insufficient. Oversight largely stays in the hands of MEPs themselves; enforcement is uneven; and the new inter-institutional Ethics Body has a narrow mandate, limited investigative tools and no sanctioning powers. Anti-corruption NGOs highlight persistent loopholes: the absence of an independent ethics authority, inadequate whistleblower protection for parliamentary staff, insufficient disclosure of side income and sponsored trips, and weak controls over informal networks. Moreover, the political focus on scrutinising NGOs rather than MEP conduct has been criticised as a diversion that risks undermining civil society oversight.

Overall, the reforms reduce some vulnerabilities but fall short of addressing the deeper structural issues that enabled Qatargate and Huawei-gate.

Restoring Trust in the European Project

Qatargate, Huawei-gate and the weaknesses they exposed have shaken public confidence at a moment when the European Union cannot afford doubts about its democratic legitimacy. These scandals do more than tarnish individuals; they undermine trust in the Union’s impartiality and reinforce eurosceptic narratives depicting EU institutions as vulnerable to foreign influence. When citizens believe that external actors can buy access more easily than voters can hold representatives accountable, the foundations of the European project begin to erode.

Rebuilding trust requires more than incremental adjustments. Strengthening OLAF and empowering the EPPO would signal that the EU is willing and able to police itself with absolute independence. Their work—tracking financial flows, uncovering misconduct and ensuring accountability—is essential to safeguarding the integrity of EU decision-making.

But institutional reforms will only succeed if accompanied by a more profound cultural shift inside the Parliament and other EU bodies: one that treats transparency and ethical conduct as core democratic obligations, not administrative burdens. The credibility of the EU ultimately depends not only on the policies it delivers but also on the integrity of the processes that shape them.

The Union can emerge stronger from these crises, but only if it closes the loopholes that enabled them and equips its oversight bodies with the authority and resources they need. Defending European democracy requires more than reacting to scandals; it demands building institutions resilient to corruption and foreign manipulation. Restoring trust is not just a matter of reputation—it is a prerequisite for the future of the European project.

Sources: European Consortium for Political Research, Euroactiv, European Commission, Euronews, Eurocrim, European Newsroom, EU Law Enforcement, European Ombudsman, Transparency International EU, European Parliament, Financial Times, Boston University (picture). 

Written by Tomás Díaz García

Edited by Sarah Valkenburg and Nina Gush