Brussels, 17 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – A €131 million Brussels housing funding dispute has intensified political tensions in Belgium’s capital, raising concerns about unpaid construction bills and the future of public housing investment. The disagreement centres … Read more
Brussels, 17 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – Brussels Midi clashes erupted on Saturday as hundreds of demonstrators confronted police near the Belgian capital’s main international railway station. Officers deployed tear gas and water cannon after protesters erected barricades … Read more
European Union leaders have ended their Brussels summit without agreement on the bloc’s next seven-year budget, after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz rejected the scale of spending envisaged under the latest compromise proposal and demanded deeper cuts.
The discussions on 15–16 October exposed the continuing division between governments determined to contain national contributions and those seeking to protect agricultural subsidies, regional development and new European investment programmes. The dispute now threatens the political timetable for approving the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework, the budget that will determine the Union’s spending priorities over the next seven years.
In their formal summit conclusions, leaders invited European Council President António Costa to take negotiations forward towards a timely agreement. No new spending settlement was endorsed, despite the Irish presidency having presented revised figures immediately before the summit.
The European Commission originally proposed a framework approaching €2 trillion in current prices, arguing that Europe needed greater financial capacity to meet its growing responsibilities in defence, competitiveness, technological development, migration and external security.
Ireland, which holds the rotating Council presidency, submitted a revised negotiating document on 10 October intended to narrow the differences between governments. The latest proposal includes substantial reductions compared with the Commission’s initial ambitions while seeking to preserve financing for established EU programmes.
Those concessions have not satisfied Berlin. Merz argues that the Union must recognise the difficult fiscal position facing national governments and that the proposed increases in common spending remain excessive.
Germany, the largest contributor to the EU budget in absolute terms, has been working with other budget-conscious governments to seek reductions from the original Commission proposal.
EU Today reported on the proposed €141 billion in reductions, including the implications for defence and competitiveness funding.
The Irish compromise has done little to bridge the divide. The revised framework seeks to combine greater financial restraint with protection for agricultural and cohesion policies, while retaining significant investment in security, research and competitiveness.
Yet every attempt to rebalance the proposed spending exposes another political conflict.
The Common Agricultural Policy and cohesion funding remain among the largest and most politically sensitive components of the EU budget. Agricultural payments support farmers across the Union, while cohesion programmes finance infrastructure, regional investment and economic development, particularly in less prosperous territories.
Governments benefiting heavily from those programmes are reluctant to accept reductions, particularly when national finances are already under pressure.
France, Italy and other countries defending traditional EU expenditure have therefore resisted attempts to transfer the burden of budget restraint disproportionately onto agriculture and regional support.
At the same time, the Commission has argued that the EU cannot simply preserve the spending structure of previous decades while promising a stronger role in European defence, industrial development and economic security.
The contradiction is increasingly apparent. European governments demand greater independence from external suppliers, stronger military capabilities and sustained financial support for Ukraine, yet remain unwilling to agree on the larger common budget that might help deliver those objectives.
Cuts to research, innovation, cross-border infrastructure or defence-industrial programmes would not necessarily produce immediate political costs. Their consequences would emerge later, through investments postponed, capabilities not developed and projects left dependent on national budgets.
Conversely, reducing agricultural payments or regional investment would produce more immediate resistance from farmers, local authorities and national governments.
The demands of 17 EU governments seeking to protect farm and cohesion spending illustrate the growing tension between established programmes and the Union’s newer strategic priorities.
The Council’s budget negotiations had been intended to deliver a political agreement before the end of 2026. That would leave 2027 for the European Parliament and member states to complete the legislation required for the new financial framework to operate from January 2028.
Failure to reach that timetable would not immediately stop EU expenditure. It would, however, compress the period available for completing the detailed legal arrangements underpinning individual programmes and could complicate the uninterrupted delivery of funding at the beginning of the next budget cycle.
The political environment is hardly favourable. Several governments face difficult domestic debates over public spending, taxation and the demands of European integration. In France, the approach of the 2027 presidential election adds another complication to negotiations requiring sensitive national concessions.
Agreement on the seven-year framework requires unanimity among member states, followed by the consent of the European Parliament. The latter has already argued that the EU needs sufficient financial resources to match the responsibilities its governments have assigned to it.
Costa now faces the task of converting competing national positions into a financial settlement that all 27 governments can accept. That will require decisions not only about the overall ceiling but also about the balance between national allocations and programmes managed at European level.
The Brussels summit has demonstrated that the principal disagreements remain unresolved. The next negotiating round will determine whether governments are prepared to compromise on spending priorities or whether their ambitions for a more capable European Union will once again run ahead of their willingness to finance it.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has disclosed that Kyiv offered to suspend attacks on Russian oil refineries in exchange for temporary American anti-ballistic missile protection for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Washington did not provide the requested systems, leaving Ukraine exposed to continued Russian missile strikes while the United States sought to restrict Ukrainian operations against Russia’s oil industry.
Speaking at a press conference in Brussels on Friday, 16 October, Zelenskyy said the proposal had been presented to Washington as a compromise following President Donald Trump’s agreement with Vladimir Putin on Russian diesel supplies and restrictions on attacks against energy facilities.
The Ukrainian president confirmed that Kyiv had not been consulted before Washington reached its understanding with Moscow. He described the diesel agreement as a surprise and objected to arrangements determining Ukraine’s military actions without its participation. Any agreement concerning Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory, he argued, required consultation with the Ukrainian government.
Nevertheless, Zelenskyy said Ukraine had been willing to accommodate American demands, even under an arrangement that did not require Russia to suspend its own attacks. Instead of insisting on reciprocal restrictions, Kyiv proposed receiving sufficient anti-ballistic missile systems to protect its electricity network for the duration of the requested suspension.
The proposal reflected Ukraine’s immediate security requirements. Russia has repeatedly targeted power stations, substations and other critical infrastructure, while Ukrainian forces have attacked Russian refineries to disrupt fuel production and reduce revenues available to Moscow. Halting the Ukrainian campaign without additional defensive capabilities would have left Kyiv surrendering one means of economic pressure while remaining vulnerable to Russian bombardment.
Zelenskyy said he had asked Washington for a limited number of systems, rather than a substantial new military commitment. The proposed deployment would have lasted only as long as the United States required Ukraine to refrain from attacking Russian refineries. However, according to the president, no such assistance was provided.
The disagreement follows the diesel arrangement announced by Trump on 9 October, under which Russia agreed to resume substantial petroleum product exports to American and international markets. Washington also authorised certain transactions involving Russian diesel, easing restrictions previously intended to reduce Moscow’s energy revenues.
The agreement created a direct conflict between American energy policy and Ukraine’s strategy of targeting Russian refining capacity. Washington wants additional diesel supplies to ease pressure on fuel markets, while Kyiv regards attacks on oil infrastructure as a means of weakening Russia’s ability to sustain its invasion.
That disagreement intensified after Ukraine resumed attacks on Russian refineries, including a strike against a facility in the Ryazan region. Trump criticised the operations, accusing Kyiv of contributing to higher global oil prices. Zelenskyy, meanwhile, argued that increased Russian diesel revenues would provide Moscow with additional resources to finance its military campaign.
The Ukrainian president’s proposal also exposed the limitations of the temporary energy ceasefire promoted by Washington. Russia continued attacks against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, including electricity facilities, despite the American initiative. Kyiv’s proposed compromise would have addressed the resulting imbalance by providing defensive protection rather than relying on Russian restraint.
The urgency of Ukraine’s request was illustrated by renewed Russian attacks during Zelenskyy’s visit to Brussels. According to the Ukrainian presidency, strikes on 15 October damaged energy infrastructure in several regions, leaving almost 15,000 people without electricity in Volyn and disrupting supplies in parts of Kyiv and the surrounding region.
Ukraine continues to face shortages of the interceptors required to defend against ballistic missiles. Zelenskyy has identified anti-ballistic capabilities as an immediate priority, particularly as Russia intensifies attacks ahead of winter. During talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, he stressed the need for additional missile interceptors and other air defence equipment.
The president also raised these requirements during Friday’s meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa. Discussions covered air defence, protection of energy infrastructure and financial assistance needed to sustain Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression.
Zelenskyy said European leaders had supported Ukraine’s position in the dispute with Washington. His remarks came as the EU reaffirmed its intention to maintain economic pressure on Moscow despite the Trump administration’s decision to facilitate Russian diesel exports.
As EU Today reported earlier on Friday, von der Leyen and Costa rejected any relaxation of European sanctions while Russia continues its war. The Commission is preparing a further sanctions package, maintaining a policy intended to restrict Moscow’s ability to finance its military operations.
The contrasting American and European positions have become increasingly significant for Kyiv. Washington is seeking to stabilise fuel markets through arrangements with Moscow, while European governments remain committed to reducing Russian energy revenues and strengthening Ukraine’s military and economic resilience.
For Zelenskyy, the unresolved question is whether Ukraine can be expected to limit attacks on Russian oil infrastructure while receiving neither reciprocal guarantees from Moscow nor additional protection against Russian ballistic missiles. His account of the unsuccessful American negotiations indicates that Kyiv was prepared to compromise, but only if its immediate defensive needs were addressed.
Europe’s economic vulnerabilities converge in Brussels today as EU leaders confront three closely connected challenges: competition from China, persistently expensive energy and disagreement over the Union’s next long-term budget. Together, they raise a question that successive summits have struggled to answer: can Europe translate its economic weight into a coherent strategy?
The immediate pressure comes from industry. Reuters reports that manufacturers blame rising Chinese exports for factory closures, while governments face mounting anxiety about employment and competitiveness. The political danger is clear. When established parties promise prosperity but communities experience industrial decline, voters become increasingly receptive to those offering simpler, more confrontational answers.
The Commission’s recent agreement with Beijing to limit Chinese hybrid-car imports offers leaders evidence that negotiation can deliver results. Yet one sectoral arrangement cannot settle a much broader dispute. Chemicals, steel and machinery remain sources of concern, demonstrating that Europe’s difficulties extend well beyond its automotive industry.
Europe should nevertheless distinguish between legitimate competition and demonstrably unfair trading practices. A trade deficit alone does not establish wrongdoing. Imported goods can benefit consumers and businesses that depend on affordable components. The stronger case for intervention rests on evidence of subsidies, market distortions or strategic dependencies that leave essential industries dangerously exposed.
Germany’s changing position is therefore significant. Previously a prominent opponent of EU tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, Berlin now backs Franco-German proposals for stronger action, including measures addressing chemicals and PET packaging plastics. Europe’s largest economy appears increasingly willing to reconsider assumptions that once favoured commercial engagement above confrontation.
That shift could strengthen Brussels’ negotiating position. Beijing has less reason to compromise when European capitals publicly disagree about whether action is necessary. A common approach would make the threat of trade measures more credible. But unity will be tested whenever retaliation threatens particular national industries or commercially influential companies.
Energy presents an equally demanding challenge. According to Reuters, draft summit conclusions seek additional short-term relief and refer to a proposed one-year delay in methane-emissions requirements affecting oil and gas imports. These remain proposals under discussion, rather than measures already agreed by leaders.
Temporary adjustments may ease immediate pressures, but postponing regulation cannot substitute for an energy strategy. European manufacturers need confidence about future costs before committing investment. That requires reliable supplies, stronger electricity networks and faster delivery of additional generating capacity. Repeated emergency interventions leave companies uncertain about the conditions under which they will operate.
Trade protection and energy policy must consequently work together. Raising barriers against imported products will achieve little if European factories remain burdened by uncompetitive operating costs. Equally, cheaper energy cannot compensate indefinitely for unfair competition. Treating these problems separately risks producing expensive measures that fail to address the underlying industrial weakness.
The budget discussion will expose whether governments are prepared to finance their ambitions. The proposed 2028–2034 framework requires unanimity, and Reuters reports that a special summit is planned for late November to pursue agreement. The familiar divide between national contributions and shared expenditure remains difficult to bridge.
Every government can identify European priorities worth supporting. Agreement becomes harder when those priorities require higher contributions, changes to established funding arrangements or reductions elsewhere. A credible settlement must explain which investments genuinely benefit from collective action and how spending will deliver measurable results. Larger totals alone cannot establish strategic seriousness.
Ukraine gives these negotiations an additional urgency. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is expected to join Friday’s discussions, with financing for 2027 among the anticipated subjects. Europe’s ability to sustain assistance will test the durability of commitments repeatedly expressed at summit tables.
Ultimately, this gathering should be judged by whether its decisions reinforce one another. Defending industry, securing affordable energy and funding common commitments are parts of the same task. Europe possesses substantial market power and institutional resources. Its continuing challenge is to combine them effectively, before another round of political assurances gives way to further industrial disappointment.
Brussels, 14 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – European Schools in Brussels are facing renewed scrutiny over employment practices after reports that school supervisors continue to receive successive fixed-term contracts despite a Belgian labour court ruling against the arrangements. … Read more
Brussels, 14 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – The Brussels-Capital Region has joined legal proceedings against the bankruptcy trustees of former fire extinguisher manufacturer SICLI following the discovery of severe chemical contamination at its former industrial site in Uccle. … Read more
Brussels, 14 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – Brussels Mayor Philippe Close has called for urgent federal intervention and additional police funding after two fatal shootings shook Belgium’s capital. The Brussels shootings, including the killing of a 41-year-old … Read more
Brussels, 13 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – A Brussels police officer has been fatally shot during an operation involving a stolen vehicle in Jette, triggering a murder investigation and expressions of sympathy from Belgian political leaders. The 41-year-old … Read more
Brussels, 13 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – A Brussels fatal shooting near the European Parliament has left one man dead and prompted a criminal investigation, raising concerns about public safety in the Belgian capital’s European Quarter.
The victim … Read more
Brussels (The Brussels Morning Newspaper) – October 13, 2026 – A public sector strike disrupted Brussels public transport on Monday, reducing metro and bus frequencies and suspending several tram services. Belgian railway operator SNCB-NMBS announced that around three in ten … Read more
Brussels, 11 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – Brussels protest violence has triggered a major judicial response after prosecutors ordered 21 people, including 17 minors and four adults, to be brought before judicial authorities following violent clashes during a … Read more
Belgian prosecutors have confirmed that 21 people, including 17 minors, have been placed under judicial arrest following violent disturbances in Brussels on Friday, 9 October, when a national trade union demonstration against the federal government’s economic policies was overshadowed by clashes between groups of youths and police.
The Brussels Public Prosecutor’s Office announced the updated figures on Saturday morning, reducing the number of judicial arrests previously reported by police while confirming that minors accounted for the substantial majority of those detained. Four adults are also in custody, with questioning scheduled throughout Saturday to determine which cases should proceed to further judicial action.
The disturbances caused extensive damage around Brussels-Central and Brussels-Midi railway stations, where masked youths attacked public transport vehicles, set fires and threw projectiles at officers. The violence occurred separately from the main trade union procession, which police described as peaceful.
The prosecutor’s office has assigned three additional magistrates to handle cases arising from Friday’s disturbances. Investigations concern suspected arson, vandalism, possession of weapons, threats, armed resistance to police and acts of violence.
In a statement released on Saturday, prosecutors reaffirmed that freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are fundamental rights, while warning that criminal conduct during demonstrations would be prosecuted. The authorities said they would respond strictly and systematically to offences committed during the unrest. Investigators have not yet established the total financial cost of the damage.
Friday evening’s preliminary police figures recorded 80 administrative detentions and approximately 30 judicial arrests. The prosecutor’s subsequent announcement identifies 21 people being held judicially; the two figures reflect different reporting stages and categories of detention.
Police reported that groups comprising more than 1,000 people were involved in serious incidents, although this figure does not establish how many individuals personally committed offences. Officers were attacked with glass bottles, cobblestones, bricks, sticks and pyrotechnic devices. Police also reported seizing potentially dangerous materials, including Molotov cocktails and other objects that could have been used as weapons.
Water cannon, tear gas and batons were deployed as officers attempted to disperse groups involved in the disturbances.
Public transport services suffered considerable damage, particularly near Brussels-Midi station, where three STIB-MIVB buses and a De Lijn bus were attacked. The Brussels transport operator said police helped drivers and passengers leave the affected vehicles. No injuries were reported in those incidents.
The De Lijn bus sustained extensive damage while parked at a terminus. Its windows were smashed, its fuel cap was removed and security barriers were thrown inside. The vehicle had to be recovered because it could no longer operate.
A separate STIB-MIVB bus was destroyed during the unrest. Several Poppy car-sharing vehicles, electric scooters and bicycles were also damaged or set alight. Police and fire service vehicles sustained damage, while bus shelters and other street infrastructure were vandalised.
Brussels-Central station was temporarily closed, and access to Brussels-Midi was restricted as police attempted to regain control. Both stations subsequently reopened, although tram services around Brussels-Midi remained disrupted into Friday evening.
The disorder has prompted a dispute over who should bear the financial consequences of violence committed during demonstrations. Belgian Interior Minister Bernard Quintin, of the liberal Mouvement Réformateur (MR), condemned the attacks on police and said the state would not be intimidated by those responsible for destruction.
MR chairman Georges-Louis Bouchez went further, proposing legislation that would make trade unions financially liable for damage associated with demonstrations, drawing a comparison with the responsibility imposed on football clubs for the behaviour of supporters.
The proposal raises questions about how responsibility could be established when violence is committed by individuals operating separately from an authorised demonstration. Police have explicitly distinguished Friday’s disturbances from the trade union march, which proceeded without serious incidents.
Friday’s demonstration was organised by Belgium’s socialist ABVV-FGTB and Christian ACV-CSC trade unions as opposition intensifies to the economic programme of Prime Minister Bart De Wever’s federal coalition.
The unions oppose proposed spending reductions and changes affecting pensions, unemployment benefits, taxation and purchasing power. Students and teachers also participated, expressing concerns about education funding, deteriorating school infrastructure and the affordability of higher education.
The dispute follows earlier confrontations over the government’s fiscal programme. As EU Today’s coverage of the previous national strike wave detailed, the coalition’s budget agreement in November 2025 failed to prevent widespread industrial action over proposed reductions in public expenditure.
The government argues that reforms are necessary to address Belgium’s persistent budget deficit and growing debt burden. Trade unions maintain that the proposed measures place disproportionate pressure on workers, pensioners and lower-income households.
Public services face another round of industrial action on Monday, 12 October, when socialist trade unions are planning strikes across several sectors.
Flemish public transport operator De Lijn expects to operate approximately 61 per cent of its normal bus and tram services, with substantial regional differences. In Antwerp city, only 45 per cent of services are expected to run, compared with 57 per cent across Antwerp province.
Belgian rail services will also be affected from 10pm on Sunday until the end of Monday. Disruption is anticipated in schools, postal services and public broadcasting.
The City of Brussels has warned of disruption to municipal administrative services on both 9 and 12 October as a consequence of the national trade union actions.
Meanwhile, Brussels prosecutors will continue questioning those arrested on Friday, with decisions on possible charges and referrals to the appropriate courts expected to depend on the evidence gathered.
Brussels, 10 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – A Brussels protest against the Belgian government’s proposed budget cuts was followed by violent clashes on Friday, 9 October, as masked individuals confronted police near major railway stations. Initial reports … Read more
The ban, imposed by the mayor of the Belgian city of Leuven on the soccer match between a Brussels-based team and an Israeli one ”is an expression of antisemitism” said the Coordinating Committee of Jewish Organizations in Belgium (CCOJB).
The match between Union Saint Gilloise and Hapoel Be’er Sheva is scheduled to take place on 22 October as part of the Europa League. Since Union’s stadium in Brussels does not meet UEFA standards, the club cannot play there. For the European competition, it had to turn to the Leuven stadium for all its home games.
However, last Tuesday (1 September), the mayor of Leuven, Mohamed Ridouani, ordered the cancellation of the match for ‘’security reasons’ due to the risk of unrest linked to the visit of an Israeli club, against the backdrop of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The mayor is a member of the Flemish Socialist party Vooruit.
The CCOJB condemned the reasons cited by the mayor of Leuven for prohibiting the match, particularly those related to security. “It is the mayor’s responsibility to ensure public safety and it is irresponsible to shirk that responsibility,” states the organization. adding that the decision was driven more by “hatred of Israel.”
A spokesperson for the embassy of Israel in Belgium stated that the Israeli team ”is an example of coexistence in Israeli football. The team includes three Arab-Israeli players: Muhammad Abu Rumi, Mohammed Kna’an and Zahi Ahmed. Politics should never be allowed to interfere with sports.”
Israeli players “should be judged by their professional abilities, not by politics or political views. Sport should remain sport, free from political agendas”, the embassy said on X.
The spokesperson offered that Israel’s Ambassador-designate to Belgium David Saranga meet with the Leuven mayor.
An Antwerp-based group, JID vzw – Stop Antisemitism, has formally filed a complaint against the mayor decision of the mayor of Leuven.
”We request that the decision and the complete accompanying administrative and security file be obtained without delay and that the decision be reviewed in light of the law and the public interest. If the required legal, factual, and proportional basis is lacking, we request that the supervisory authority annul the decision,” it said.
A long-running institutional struggle over who controls European Union foreign policy has broken into the open, with EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas publicly acknowledging that the role of the High Representative has not worked as intended when decisions are effectively taken above her inside the European Commission, writes Catherine Feore.
Speaking after an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers, Kallas delivered an unusually candid assessment of the relationship between the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Commission and the member states.
At the centre of the dispute is a fundamental question: whether the EU's foreign policy is ultimately directed through the High Representative, who is supposed to bridge the Commission and national governments, or through Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Kallas argued that the problem does not lie primarily in the EU treaties or the institutional architecture they created. Instead, she said, it lies in how that architecture has been implemented in practice.
Video
"The problem is not the treaties, not the institutional setup. The problem is the implementation of that setup that it would work in practice, and there was a broad support by the member states to make it work. But of course, it doesn't entirely depend on the member states," Kallas said.
The final sentence was significant. Kallas' comments point towards criticism of von der Leyen.
Under the EU's institutional structure, Kallas holds two positions simultaneously: High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission. The dual role was designed precisely to connect foreign-policy decisions made by the member states with the powerful economic and regulatory instruments controlled by the Commission.
Those instruments include trade, development assistance, enlargement, migration and visa policy. Kallas argued that Europe cannot operate effectively as a geopolitical actor unless it brings those tools together with the foreign policy agreed by national governments.
"If we want to act as a geopolitical player, we should really put these things together," she said, arguing that this was precisely why the treaties created the vice-presidential component of the High Representative's job.
A role that works "on paper"
Asked about proposals to shift parts of the EEAS, its staff or competences towards the Commission, she described a system in which her coordinating authority exists more clearly in theory than in practice.
"The high representative/vice president is the link between the member states and the Commission, on paper, in theory,” she added pointedly that “we have had issues where there is somebody above me that is actually deciding; then you know it doesn't work that way. Let's be very frank.”
The reference to "somebody above me" was the sharpest indication of the institutional problem Kallas was describing. Within the Commission hierarchy, the person “above” Kallas is Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Commission versus EEAS
The question arose because foreign affairs ministers were discussing the future of the EEAS and how Europe's external-policy machinery should be organised.
According to Kallas, governments broadly supported retaining the existing institutional structure rather than rewriting it. But they also want that structure to operate as originally intended.
She warned in particular against duplication between the EEAS and the Commission. If a function is already being performed effectively by the diplomatic service, she argued, there is little justification for recreating the same capacity inside the Commission.
The discussion also touched on proposals to concentrate more external-action functions inside the Commission. Kallas said such a transfer could not be separated from the High Representative's authority.
If external-action services are concentrated in the Commission, she argued, the other side of the bargain must be that the High Representative genuinely oversees those services. "One side of the equation cannot happen without the other," she said.
Kallas said a majority of governments supported maintaining the current institutional setup and opposed concentrating everything in the Commission without the High Representative's coordinating role being implemented in practice.
PHOTO CREDIT: Roundtable Informal meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers (Gymnich) - September 2026 - Irish Foreign Minister Helen McEntee and EU High Representative Kaja Kallas © European Union
Since June 2026, Brussels’ bustline Place Noord has made a space available to three local associations led by young people to develop their activities, projects, and events.
The associations are primarily from the Quartier Nord (spanning the City of Brussels and Schaerbeek).
The space is now gradually becoming a hub for meeting, creativity, and initiative for the neighbourhood's youth.
This Thursday, 3 September, the venue is opening its doors to the public for an evening to mark what is called 'Residents Day'.
The initiative stemmed directly from a request made by young people.
In May, Laila, Marouane, and Rashad came to meet the Place Noord team one by one to ask if a space could be made available to them—both for their weekly activities and for organizing their own events.
Pauline Omnes, programmer at Place Noord, told this site on Wednesday: "I have been working in the Quartier Nord for several years, collaborating closely with local community groups.
“The idea was for Place Noord to also serve projects led by the neighbourhood's youth, with support from those who have been working here longer.
“The goal is not only to provide them with a venue but also to connect them with others so they can grow their projects.
“On one hand, Play Label organizes events that generate the funds needed to make the space available for free, thereby supporting these local initiatives."
Since their arrival, the three associations have been gradually settling into the premises. Young people work on their projects there, but also come to study, play board games, organize movie nights, or simply socialize.
The presence of the three associations also creates a collective dynamic that extends beyond their individual activities, said Omnes.
"Young people share ideas, skills, and projects, and are beginning to build a shared life within the space."
"Any citizen can get shot. This is not going to calm down," warned Julien Moinil, (pictured) the King's Prosecutor of Brussels, during a press conference on Friday, dedicated to the recent wave of violence linked to drug trafficking. Approximately 150 shootings have been recorded since the firearm attack on 5 February 2025 at Metro station Clémenceau. Accompanied by the head of the Brussels-Midi police zone, Jurgen De Landsheer, and the director of the Federal Judicial Police of Brussels, Eric Jacobs, the prosecutor outlined recent events, the judicial response, and several points of concern.
The current wave began on 20 August. It is believed to be related to a conflict between two groups involved in drug sales. Three individuals have been arrested in connection with the shootings over the past few weeks. Around a hundred shooters have also been detained since the violence started. No link has currently been established between this conflict and the shootings targeting the police station last weekend in Anderlecht. "They have touched a sensitive point: a police station," emphasized Julien Moinil. No one has been injured, but the prosecutor reminded everyone of the daily risks police officers face and assured them of the prosecution's support. He praised the work of both local and federal police but called for structural investment.
The current prosecutor's office staff includes 49 magistrates out of the 63 planned. He reiterated his requests for more investigators in the federal judicial police and the installation of jamming devices at Haren prison, noting that at least one mastermind operating from a cell has been definitively identified. "The solution must not only come from the Justice Department," insisted Julien Moinil, calling for mobilization of the social and health sectors as well. He advocates activating a task force led by the prime minister.
Fancy a novel way of dining out – one that provides a delicious meal while viewing the sights of the “capital of Europe”?
If so, the Tram Experience in Brussels could be just for you.
The Tram Experience is a unique rolling gourmet restaurant set inside a beautifully converted historic STIB-MIVB tram.
Diners enjoy a multi-course meal while slowly cruising through boulevards and scenic neighbourhoods of southern and eastern Brussels (such as Louise, Merode, and the Tram Museum).
Menus are designed by renowned and Michelin-starred Belgian chefs, featuring high-end reinterpretations of local cuisine. Dishes are prepared and served fresh on board.
A new season of the Tram Experience returns this week, on Friday 28 August. The menus for the new season will be created by some of the biggest names in Belgian gastronomy.
Among them are the promising David-Alexandre Bruno (Quartz), who will join Michelin-starred chefs such as Olly Ceulenaere (Publiek*) and Ricarda Grommes (Quadras*).
To mark 100 years of Comme Chez Soi*, three generations of chefs from the country’s most iconic restaurant, will be offering a celebratory menu especially for the occasion.
This season also sees the introduction of a new lunch package designed for large groups.
A spokesman said, “A trip aboard the Tram Experience is an unforgettable culinary experience.
“Whether as a couple, a group of four or a larger party, guests savour a menu created by a renowned chef whilst touring the capital’s most beautiful neighbourhoods.
“It’s the perfect choice for a romantic dinner in Brussels, a unique evening out with friends or an exclusive team-building event.”
The first names in the line up for the new season (running through early 2027) offer a wonderful glimpse of Belgian culinary excellence.
Building on the Tram Experience's popularity, this year visitors will also be able to enjoy a brand new lunch package designed especially for large groups looking to book the whole tram for a private event.
Belgian gastronomy’s leading names take centre stage and a number of iconic figures from the country’s three regions will feature this season.
David-Alexandre Bruno, from Brussels, opens proceedings.
At the helm of the Quartz restaurant in Ixelles, chef Bruno captivates diners with cuisine that combines technical precision and elegance. This approach earned him the title of Young Chef of the Year 2026 for Brussels in the latest edition of the Gault & Millau guide.
He has devised the menu that will be served on board the tram until 11 October.
Other renowned chefs have been announced.
Olly Ceulenaere, from Michelin-starred Ghent restaurant Publiek*, will be designing the menu to be served from 2 February to 21 March.
His exciting and unpretentious approach is sure to leave a lasting impression on diners.
From 23 March to 9 May, the spotlight turns to Ricarda Grommes, head chef at another Michelinstarred establishment, the highly acclaimed Quadras* in Saint-Vith.
Famous for her creativity, which draws on influences from a wide range of sources, she will be serving up cuisine as inspired as it is innovative.
The centenary of Comme Chez Soi December and January will also be marked.
A true institution on the Brussels gastronomic scene, the restaurant on place Rouppe has held Michelin stars without interruption for over 70 years.
To celebrate this exceptional anniversary, Pierre Wynants, the “godfather” of Belgian gastronomy, will join forces with his son-in-law and current head chef, Lionel Rigolet, as well as his grandson and future head chef, Loïc Rigolet, to create a unique festive menu.
Every year, the Tram Experience serves around 8,500 guests.
In light of the concept’s growing success, an additional set menu will now be available on weekdays.
In addition to the 6- or 7-course dinner menus, a 4-course lunch menu is being introduced.
This option is exclusively for large groups booking the entire tram for private use.
The menus are prepared on board, with the utmost care, by Thibault Granville (Taste Great) and his team.Bookings are for 2 or 4 people. It is also possible to book the entire tram (36 seats) or a single carriage (16 or 20 seats) for an event or a team-building activity.
Login