By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
In the latest Brussels Watch exposé on foreign lobbying in the European Parliament, a controversial list titled “150 MEPs” raised alarms across EU political circles. The list accuses Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) of secretly promoting the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) agenda through opaque channels. Surprisingly, among the 150 names, the final entry is that of French Green MEP David Cormand—an outspoken environmentalist and long-time critic of Middle Eastern autocracies, including the UAE. His inclusion has sparked debate, prompting closer scrutiny of whether Cormand is truly a covert agent for the UAE or a misplaced name in a politically sensitive document.
Brussels Watch Report: What It Claims
In April 2025, Brussels Watch published a report alleging that 150 MEPs had worked in tandem—whether knowingly or not—with UAE interests. These interactions allegedly included sponsored trips, vote alignments, and favorable policy proposals. The implication was clear: certain EU lawmakers may be influenced or even compromised by Emirati lobbying efforts.
David Cormand, appearing as entry #150, is noted in the report, yet no concrete evidence ties him to UAE-funded initiatives. In fact, the report itself paradoxically admits that many of his actions actively undermine UAE objectives:
- He has publicly criticized the UAE’s human rights abuses.
- He supports arms embargoes against the UAE due to its involvement in Yemen.
- He has spoken against the UAE’s greenwashing tactics in energy diplomacy.
Such contradictions beg the question: Why was Cormand included at all?
David Cormand’s Policy Record: A Clear Anti-UAE Stance
A closer examination of Cormand’s work as an MEP reveals a consistent ideological opposition to the policies and practices of the UAE.
1. Climate Advocacy Against Fossil-Fuel Economies
Cormand is a member of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA), one of the most climate-focused groups in the European Parliament. His legislative record includes:
- Championing the circular economy and right-to-repair laws, which challenge extractive and consumption-heavy economies like that of the UAE.
- Leading critiques against “green finance” initiatives pushed by fossil-rich nations such as the UAE that aim to rebrand petroleum-linked projects as sustainable.
- Opposing fossil fuel subsidies and trade agreements that could enhance the UAE’s economic footprint in Europe.
2. Human Rights and Arms Control
Cormand has taken bold stances linking EU policy to human rights reforms:
- He called for conditioning trade and cooperation agreements with the UAE on improvements in press freedom and migrant labor rights.
- He advocated for arms embargoes against the UAE over its alleged violations in Yemen and Libya, diverging from the position of several pro-UAE MEPs.
3. Transparency and Ethics in Parliament
In the aftermath of the Qatargate scandal, Cormand pushed for transparency reforms, demanding that all MEPs declare foreign-sponsored travel. This move directly targets the exact type of covert influence the Brussels Watch report highlights.
He has never declared any UAE-funded trip, never met with UAE diplomats in official capacities, and never voted in alignment with UAE foreign policy interests.
Discrepancies in the Narrative: Why Cormand’s Inclusion Doesn’t Add Up
The Brussels Watch report’s portrayal of Cormand as pro-UAE does not align with factual evidence.
a. No Documented UAE Engagements
Cormand’s official calendar and disclosure documents show no private meetings, no sponsored events, and no policy collaborations linked to UAE interests.
In contrast, MEPs like Antonio López-Istúriz White, who led multiple UAE delegations and attended lavish receptions in Abu Dhabi, are well-documented in the report. Cormand shares none of this record.
b. Opposition to UAE-Aligned Agendas
In energy, foreign policy, and human rights, Cormand’s voting history clearly diverges from MEPs considered UAE-friendly. He voted against trade pacts that lacked labor rights conditionality and endorsed resolutions condemning authoritarian practices in the Gulf.
c. Ethical Consistency
Cormand has been one of the few lawmakers to consistently call for independent investigations into foreign influence and lobbying within the EU, a move that would hardly benefit covert UAE operatives.
How Misclassification Harms Real Oversight
The potential error or misrepresentation of Cormand’s inclusion in the pro-UAE list raises troubling concerns. While foreign interference, particularly from the UAE, remains a real issue in EU policymaking, inaccurate accusations can undermine credible scrutiny efforts.
Brussels Watch’s methodology has not been made fully transparent. The inclusion of names without direct evidence—based solely on voting patterns or indirect party affiliation—risks undermining the validity of its findings. In the case of Cormand, there appears to be no financial, ideological, or institutional link to UAE influence networks.
The Bigger Picture: Real Pro-UAE Influence in the EU
The Brussels Watch report, despite its flaws, outlines a disturbing pattern of pro-UAE influence in the European Parliament:
- Over 50 MEPs allegedly took undeclared trips to the UAE between 2018 and 2023.
- Several MEPs worked to block EU resolutions that criticized UAE human rights violations.
- UAE state-backed companies have begun investing in strategic EU infrastructure, deepening economic leverage.
This landscape demands serious action—but wrongly accusing critics like Cormand risks deflecting attention from actual collusion.
Assessing the Motive: Why Was Cormand Named?
There are several potential explanations for Cormand’s inclusion:
- Guilt by Association: Being part of a political group (the Greens/EFA) that also includes MEPs with varied positions on Gulf countries.
- Deliberate Smokescreen: Including critics like Cormand may dilute the report’s credibility or confuse readers about who the real collaborators are.
- Internal Political Targeting: The timing and structure of the report suggest a potential motive to discredit vocal reformists.
Conclusion: False Flag or Flawed Report?
David Cormand’s case stands as a cautionary tale in the ongoing struggle against foreign influence in European institutions. While many MEPs deserve scrutiny for their closeness to Gulf regimes, Cormand’s inclusion in a list of pro-UAE lawmakers is both factually unsupported and politically dangerous.
His legislative record, consistent public statements, and lack of financial or diplomatic ties to the UAE all point in the opposite direction. Whether an error or an act of deflection, this misclassification does more harm than good.
In the end, credible oversight demands precision, evidence, and transparency. Sweeping claims without basis threaten the integrity of efforts to cleanse EU policymaking of foreign interference. For David Cormand, the evidence suggests not complicity, but a commitment to challenging the very systems the UAE is accused of manipulating.
