European Parliamentary groups from the far-left to the ‘center-right’ have come out in support of EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen ahead of next week’s no-confidence vote, brought forward by a coalition of national conservative MEPs—meaning the motion will most likely fail. But not before dealing a major blow to von der Leyen’s public image. This is only the fourth such motion in EU history, and the first in over a decade.
As we wrote in detail here, the motion was submitted by former professor of law Gheorghe Piperea, who sits as an MEP for the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group. He gathered the required number of signatures to trigger the process mainly from three right-wing groups (the Patriots, ECR, and the right-wing ESN). He was even supported by a few rogue MEPs from von der Leyen’s own ‘center-right’ EPP group.
The debate in the Strasbourg plenary, where von der Leyen is obliged to appear, was scheduled for next Monday, July 7th, followed by the vote itself. But as a no-confidence motion against the EU executive requires two-thirds of the votes cast, representing at least half the total number of seats in the Parliament, in favor of it to succeed, there’s virtually no chance of bringing down the second von der Leyen cabinet with the current parliamentary make-up.
Even the conservatives who put it forward know this, but say it was never the primary goal. “We are aware since the very beginning that the required two-thirds of votes necessary for the fall of the Commission will be impossible to secure,” an insider involved in crafting the motion told europeanconservative. “Our goal is to send a signal and to bring to public attention the main issues concerning Ursula von der Leyen.”
The EU mainstream, however, does not appreciate that some are daring to question von der Leyen’s integrity. “In times of economic uncertainty and global turmoil, it is completely irresponsible to carry out such publicity stunts,” said EPP chairman Manfred Weber, adding that the conservatives’ only goal is “an unstable and weak Europe.”
In contrast, Piperea made it clear that his motion is only about accountability, without any partisan agenda behind it. In his official reasoning, the lawmaker cited several concerns. These include “judicially confirmed” breaches of transparency (‘Pfizergate’). He also pointed to the unlawful interference in national elections through biased social media censorship via the DSA. Another issue is the “misapplication” of the emergency clause to bypass the Parliament. This was done to fast-track the €150 billion joint loan-backed rearmament scheme, ‘SAFE.’ The Parliament is suing the Commission over this scheme at the EU Court of Justice.
These add up to “grave and substantiated concerns” regarding the Commission’s persistent failure to uphold core democratic principles of the EU, Piperea wrote, demonstrating “a continued pattern of institutional overreach, democratic disregard, and erosion of public trust in the Union’s governance.”
However, the left wing of the EU Parliament couldn’t care less about these issues, it seems, and despite all of them having personal grievances with von der Leyen, their main motivation is to never appear in agreement with what they consider the “far-right.”
However, the vote will be done through a secret ballot, meaning MEPs of the ‘Ursula coalition’ can dissent with impunity if they want. “There is discontent, the vote is secret, so the question is whether all MEPs will get in line,” an unnamed lawmaker from the center-left coalition said. “It will not go through, but the vote will be a scare,” he added.
And a good ‘scare’ is good enough for the national conservative blocs, who hope to be able to put von der Leyen on the stand for the whole of Europe to see.
“It will be sensational to see how Ursula von der Leyen justifies the accusations in the motion, especially since the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ordered the Commission to publish details of its negotiations on the contracts with Pfizer,” Piperea explained.
The fact the vote is happening at all is a major success alone, given the extreme rarity of motions of no-confidence against the EU executive. There have been nine attempts in the history of the European Parliament, but only three succeeded in gathering the required signatures. The motions in 2005 and 2014 against the Barroso and Juncker commissions were rejected by the majority, while a third in 1999 ended with the whole Santer Commission resigning before MEPs could cast their votes.
