MEPs seek EU Commission president's resignation with censure motion
A group of European lawmakers has launched an initiative for a no-confidence vote against European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, claiming to have collected more than the required 72 signatures to formally submit the motion.
Although unlikely to pass, the censure motion could pave the way to broader consequences, replicating the path that led in the 1990s to the voluntary resignation of the EU executive led by Jacques Santer.
The move comes in response to a recent court ruling criticising von der Leyen's lack of transparency in relation to the so-called 'Pfizergate' scandal, as well as broader allegations of bypassing the European Parliament and centralising power within the Commission.
Romanian hard-right MEP Gheorghe Piperea announced he would submit the motion of censure this week, having gathered signatures from MEPs across at least three political groupings on the right and far-right spectrum: the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), the Patriots, the European of Sovereign Nations group (ESN), as well as some non-affiliated members.
Despite participation from individual conservative MEPs, the initiative does not officially represent the ECR group, which includes Italy's ruling party, Fratelli d'Italia, led by Giorgia Meloni. 'ECR MEPs participating in this initiative are doing so on an individual basis,' a spokesperson clarified.
While the threshold to initiate a no-confidence vote is relatively low, the chances of removing von der Leyen and her Commission are slim. Such a motion requires a two-thirds majority in the 720-seat European Parliament.
'I hope other groups will join the motion, but I'm not naive,' Piperea told Euronews, acknowledging the unlikelihood of success.
The 'Santer Commission' precedent
That is not the direct aim however.
'Still, we could gather a couple hundred votes, which may trigger a broader debate among politicians and the public, possibly leading to her voluntary resignation,' said Piperea.
No-confidence votes are infrequent but historically significant in the European Parliament. In 1999, the entire European Commission, led by Jacques Santer, resigned amid fraud allegations and transparency issues, despite surviving a confidence vote.
Piperea, a lawyer by profession, said that even if the motion fails, it could serve as a valuable political tool.
'There seems to be an unwritten rule that the Commission, and von der Leyen in particular, cannot be held accountable for mistakes or failures. We must end this. In a democracy, there should be accountability, oversight, and responsibility.'
The primary driver behind the motion is the ongoing 'Pfizergate' controversy, centred on von der Leyen's refusal to disclose text messages exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during COVID-19 vaccine negotiations,
For this matter, the EU court recently ruled against her. The motion also criticises her handling of legislative affairs, including the withdrawal of environmental proposals without proper consultation with Parliament.
Unlikely perfect storm scenario
The court ruling has amplified criticism of von der Leyen across the political spectrum, with socialists, liberals, and greens voicing concern over her leadership and transparency. According to Piperea, socialist MEPs are also discontented with recent budget cuts to anti-poverty programs.
Nonetheless, the only scenario that could pose a real threat to von der Leyen would likely be a perfect storm, in which a wide range of political groups—including members of her own centre-right European People's Party (EPP)—turn against her for different reasons.
The far-right origins of this initiative may deter broader support for it however.
A source from The Left group, which has been among the most vocal opponents of von der Leyen and previously filed its own motion of censure, expressed scepticism.
'Some delegations in our group are strongly committed to the cordon sanitaire and avoid cooperation with the ECR,' the source said.
'They've supported Commissioner Fitto during this mandate and didn't back our earlier censure motion. This feels more like a communication stunt.'
Piperea acknowledged the ideological roadblocks. 'Some groups aren't fully opposed to the motion itself, but they hesitate simply because it's coming from the right,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
41 minutes ago
- Euronews
Musk-Trump fallout means stronger EU Tech enforcement, experts say
ADVERTISEMENT The fallout between US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, along with the expansion of the Digital Services Act (DSA) on July 1st, could make the law easier for the European Commission to enforce. Experts told Euronews Next that while Musk worked as a special employee at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), it is possible that he was perceived as an official voice of the administration. Musk's former position could have made it harder for the Commission to put penalties on Musk's social media network X because they were worried about a larger 'spillover effect' with the Trump administration, said Oreste Pollicino, professor of digital constitutionalism and artificial intelligence at Bocconi University in Italy. 'Musk was seen not only as the owner of X but as a part of the US administration; this will not be the case anymore,' he said, adding that 'the political cost of targeting Musk could decrease'. 'They worry about the fallout' The DSA is a piece of legislation that regulates the spread of illegal and harmful online activities on platforms such as marketplaces, social media sites and app stores. On July 1st, a voluntary code of practice on disinformation will be folded into the DSA, which means platforms will have to abide by it going forward. (Twitter had signed the code in 2018 under previous leadership but withdrew in 2023 after Elon Musk bought the platform and renamed it X.) There's no proof that the Commission is avoiding taking action against X due to Musk's ties with Trump at the time because that would make it look 'very bad, ' said Jan Penfrat, senior policy advisor with European Digital Rights. However, he said that one of the major indicators that the Commission was worried about the Trump-Musk relationship is the fact that there is not yet a decision in its initial investigation into X, which was launched over 500 days ago. Last July, preliminary findings from the Commission found that X was in violation of the DSA in areas of 'dark patterns, advertising transparency, and data access for researchers'. 'There's tonnes of evidence. The Commission said so themselves. So why are we still waiting on [a] binding decision against X?' Penfrat told Euronews Next. 'One good explanation would be that yes, they are hesitant because they worry about the fallout … so if Trump and Musk aren't getting along anymore, [it could] lead to stronger and more decisions [under the legislation]'. How could the Commission prevent future enforcement issues? In the wake of the Trump-Musk fallout, Pollicino said there could be additional appetite from EU lawmakers to introduce complementary 'instruments' to close certain enforcement gaps. One of the things these instruments could focus on is refining a 'more precise criteria' for what might constitute a 'systemic risk' for harmful content, he added. The DSA currently evaluates four categories of systemic risks: the dissemination of illegal content, negative effects for the exercise of fundamental rights, negative effects on civic discourse, and negative effects on the protection of minors, gender-based violence and public health. 'If X is no longer perceived as an ideological instrument for a powerful United States political actor, it might recalibrate how systemic risks are assessed vis-a-vis … platforms like Meta, TikTok, [and] YouTube,' Pollicino said. The instrument could potentially address platform capture risk, Pollicino added, when a service becomes 'functionally aligned with a political actor or agenda [to] undermine democratic discourse.' Penfrat said that while the DSA is a 'solid' piece of legislation, more investment needs to be made into how to enforce it at the national level. What's next for the DSA investigation into X? The most recent update of the X investigation is that the Commission asked for more information about the algorithms the platform uses to push some content over others. Euronews Next reached out to the Commission to see if there have been any additional steps taken on the DSA investigation but did not receive an immediate reply. Pollicino said he believes the scope of the investigation that the European Commission already launched under the DSA into X should be expanded to include any harmful commentary or content that Musk would've perpetrated on the platform during his time as DOGE special government employee. 'For sure, there was a bigger impact when there was this alliance between Musk and Trump,' Pollicino said. Musk could eventually be charged with up to six per cent of X's profits in Europe under the DSA, but Penfrat argued that the penalty should be applied to Musk's entire net worth instead. 'If you limit it to X, then there's not much to fine,' he said. 'X doesn't have a huge revenue compared to how rich Elon Musk is … you'll end up with a fine that's, you know, less than pocket money [for him],' he said. Euronews Next reached out to X but didn't get an immediate reply.
France 24
3 hours ago
- France 24
Trump metal tariffs wreak havoc on US factory
At Independent Can's factory in Belcamp, Maryland northeast of Baltimore, CEO Rick Huether recounts how he started working at his family's business at age 14. Huether, now 73, says he is determined to keep his manufacturing company afloat for generations to come. But Trump's tariffs are complicating this task. "We're living in chaos right now," he told AFP. Since returning to the presidency in January, Trump imposed tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and aluminum -- and then doubled the rate to 50 percent. This has weighed on operations at Independent Can, and Huether expects he eventually will have to raise prices. Not enough tinplate With the steady beat of presses, steel plates that have been coated with tin -- to prevent corrosion -- are turned into containers for cookies, dried fruit, coffee and milk powder at Huether's factory. But there is not enough of such American-made tinplate for companies like his. "In the United States, we can only make about 25 percent of the tinplate that's required to do what we do," in addition to what other manufacturers need, Huether said. "Those all require us to buy in the neighborhood of 70 percent of our steel outside of the United States," he added. While Huether is a proponent of growing the US manufacturing base, saying globalization has "gone almost a little bit too far," he expressed concern about Trump's methods. Trump has announced a stream of major tariffs only to later back off parts of them or postpone them, and also imposed duties on items the country does not produce. For now, Independent Can -- which employs nearly 400 people at four sites -- is ruling out any layoffs despite the current upheaval. But Huether said one of the company's plants in Iowa closed last year in part because of a previous increase in steel tariffs, during Trump's first presidential term. Price hikes With steel tariffs at 50 percent now, Huether expects he will ultimately have to raise his prices by more than 20 percent, given that tinplate represents a part of his production costs. Some buyers have already reduced their orders this year by 20 to 25 percent, over worries about the economy and about not having enough business themselves. Others now seem more inclined to buy American, but Huether expressed reservations over how long this trend might last, citing his experiences from the Covid-19 crisis. "During the pandemic, we took everybody in. As China shut down and the ports were locked up, our business went up 50 percent," he explained. But when the pandemic was over, customers turned back to purchasing from China, he said. "Today if people want to come to us, we'll take them in," he said, but added: "We need to have a two-year contract." Huether wants to believe that his company, which is almost a century old after being founded during the Great Depression, will weather the latest disruptions. © 2025 AFP
Local France
11 hours ago
- Local France
How securing rights through citizenship has become 'increasingly fragile'
The first Global State of Citizenship report, by the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT) at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, analyses citizenship laws in 191 countries in 2024. Researchers found that "with the growing number of armed conflicts and incidence of terrorism worldwide, many countries have introduced provisions for withdrawing the citizenship of a person on the basis of national security grounds.' Over a third of countries, including many European ones, 'can now strip a person of their citizenship when their actions are seen as disloyal or threatening to state security,' the report says, and the trend has been expanding. The practice is linked to an 'increasing securitisation of citizenship' since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 in the USA. Between 2000 and 2020, 18 European countries put in place measures to deprive persons of citizenship because of national security or to counter terrorism. Before 2001, these measures were 'virtually absent', the report says. Recently, the Swedish government commissioned an inquiry on the revocation of citizenship from individuals threatening national security . Germany's coalition parties discussed this option for 'supporters of terrorism, antisemites, and extremists'. Hungary also amended the constitution to allow the temporary suspension of citizenship because of national security. Middle East and North Africa are other regions where these policies have expanded, the report says. Advertisement Ways to strip citizenship The report identifies four ways in which citizens can be stripped of their status on security grounds. Nearly 80 per cent of countries have rules covering at least one of these situations. In 132 countries around the world, and two thirds of European states, citizenship can be removed for disloyalty or for acts that threaten national security, such treason, espionage, trying to overthrow a government or terrorism. Such rules exist in Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK. In 89 countries, however, this rule concerns only to people who naturalised, not those who acquired citizenship by birth. Another reason that can lead to the stripping of citizenship is having committee serious criminal offences, which typically involves having been sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period. These rules exist in 79 countries but only a few in Europe. In 70 countries, citizenship can be removed for serving in a foreign army and in 18 this measure concerns only people who acquired citizenship by naturalisation. In Europe, 40 per cent of countries – including France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Estonia, Turkey, Belarus and Bosnia Herzegovina – can remove citizenship under certain conditions for having served in another army. Latvia, one of the countries that can revoke citizenship for such reasons, changed the law in 2022 to allow its citizens to work with the Ukrainian military forces. Citizenship can also be removed for providing non-military services to another state, such as being elected in a public office, working for certain agencies or just in the civil service. Such rules exist in 75 countries around the world and some in Europe too, including France, Greece and Turkey. Advertisement People naturalised more at risk Luuk van der Baaren, co-author of the report, said at the presentation of the study that 'these developments indeed raise an important question as to what extent is citizenship still a secure legal status'. The data also shows that 'a large share of the citizenship stripping provisions are discriminatory in nature, as they only apply to specific groups, particularly citizens by naturalisation'. This is to prevent that a person remains stateless, but it means that 'citizens by birth have a secure legal status, while those who acquired citizenship later in life do not,' he added. Losing citizenship may not only affect the personal security and life opportunities, but also that of dependants, the report says, as in 40 per cent of countries citizenship deprivation can extend to children. Other ways of losing citizenship There are other ways, intentional or not, to lose citizenship, according to the report. The most common, is to have withdrawn because it was acquired in a fraudulent way. Such rules exist in 157 countries. 156 states have also rules on how to voluntarily renounce citizenship, usually with provisions to ensure that a person does not end up stateless. In 56 countries, people can lose their citizenship if they acquire another nationality, and in 55 this may occur by simply residing abroad. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'everyone has the right to a nationality', but four million people in the world are stateless 'because their citizenship remains denied or unrecognised,' the report continues. On the other hand, 35 countries do not allow people to renounce citizenship, or make this impossible in practice. Advertisement Unequal rights The report also looks at ways to acquire citizenship and finds 'highly unequal pathways'. The most common naturalisation requirement knowledge. Less common are economic self-sufficiency, civic or cultural integration, language or citizenship tests, and renunciation of other citizenships. On residency requirements, Americas and Western Europe have the more inclusive measures. Citizenship in European countries is also regulated via the European Convention on Nationality, under which the residence requirement cannot exceed 10 years. In 15 countries the wait is longer than 10 years: Equatorial Guinea (40 years), United Arab Emirates (30), Bahrain (25), Qatar (25), Bhutan (20), Brunei (20), Eritrea (20), Oman (20), Chad (15), Gambia (15), Nigeria (15), Rwanda (15), Sierra Leone (15), St. Kitts and Nevis (14), and India (11).
