Von der Leyen's European Commission faces no-confidence vote – DW – 07/02/2025
The European Commission under President Ursula von der Leyen will face a European Parliament no-confidence vote next week.
Parliament President Roberta Metsola informed parliamentary group leaders of the development Wednesday evening.
European lawmakers will debate the motion on Monday, with a vote scheduled for three days later.
Although the vote is largely symbolic, as most parties oppose the motion, it underscores growing frustration in Brussels following a series of contentious decisions. If the motion were to pass, the Commission would be required to resign as a whole, including its president and all 26 EU commissioners.
Right-wing Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea launched the motion of censure, criticizing von der Leyen for a lack of transparency regarding text messages exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to , personal contact between von der Leyen and Bourla was key to securing the EU's multibillion-euro vaccine deal during the crisis.
The European Union's General Court recently annulled a European Commission decision that had denied a journalist access to those messages.
Piperea also accused the Commission of "interference" in Romania's presidential election, in which nationalist George Simion lost to pro-European Nicusor Dan.
However, the European Conservatives and Reformists group, which Piperea is a member of, has distanced itself from the motion.
"It's not an initiative of our group," an ECR spokesperson said.
For the motion to pass, it would require an absolute majority, at least 361 of the 720 votes.
While the current Commission is also led by von der Leyen, but following European elections in 2024, many of the commissioners are not those who served during the coronavirus pandemic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
16 hours ago
- DW
Do EU structures enable far-right misuse of public money? – DW – 07/04/2025
A leaked audit accuses far-right parties of improperly spending millions in EU funds. Critics say it's not just a scandal but a symptom of the EU system's deeper problems. From donations to dog shelters to questionable contracts with politically affiliated companies, far-right members of the European Parliament have been accused of funnelling public funds towards personal or ideological allies. An internal parliamentary audit obtained by a group of investigative journalists from German broadcaster ARD's magazine show Kontraste, German newspaper , French newspaper and Austrian media outlet, Falter, reveals that the now-defunct far-right Identity and Democracy group, commonly referred to as ID, may have spent at least €4.3 million ($5.1 million) in EU operating funds on what the European Parliament's own administration calls "unjustified and potentially unlawful" transactions. Every year the European Parliament allocates funds for the administrative and operational expenses of each political grouping in it, usually between €6 million to €7 million annually. Those funds are meant to support legislative work — such as funding policy research, running public events related to EU politics, or producing communications materials that explain their activities to citizens. Around 5% of this budget can be transferred to external organizations but donations to local charities, national campaign efforts, or groups with no clear link to EU-level work are explicitly prohibited. However the internal audit alleges that around 80 of the ID group's expenses do not meet that requirement. The improper spending allegedly includes fictitious service contracts, improper tender procedures and donations to associations unrelated to parliamentary activities and connected to far-right figures, the investigating publications reported. The scale of the findings suggest that this was more than administrative sloppiness and raises deeper questions about how the EU's own structures may be enabling such abuses. As an example, the report says the ID group — which disbanded in the summer of 2024 but previously included Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National, or RN, Germany's Alternative for Germany, or AfD, Italy's Lega and Austria's Freedom Party, or FPÖ — donated €1,000 ($1200) to the president of a French-Russian cultural association, Teremok. She is the spouse of Gregoire Eury, an RN councillor for the Grand Est region. This was just one of many connections between the associations that benefited from ID donations and far-right officials from ID-affiliated parties. Other donations simply reflected the broader political affinities of ID elected officials. In Germany, SOS Leben (or "SOS Life," in English), which is linked to the AfD, received €3,500 to support anti-abortion campaigns. In France, €1,000 went to the Catholic identitarian association SOS Calvaires to restore a parish. Around €600,000 reportedly landed with , a far-right Austrian newspaper close to the FPÖ, with ID paying for advertising far above market rates. Money also went to animal shelters and charities — not necessarily a bad thing, but also not acceptable under EU rules. French companies close to Marine Le Pen were among the biggest beneficiaries: Two firms tied to her longtime political allies reportedly received more than €3 million in total. One of them has previously been implicated in another EU funding scandal. The former secretary general of now defunct ID group, Philip Claeys, denied any wrongdoing and told the investigating journalists that all the payments were "duly invoiced and justified." Claeys said that an external auditor and then the European Parliament had approved the ID group's yearly financial statements. Donations by the group were apparently based on a rule called "Article 68." Only thing is, the investigative journalists found, there's no such thing as "Article 68." Yet it appeared in multiple years of published accounts without triggering alarms. When contacted, the Belgian auditors responsible declined to comment. "This is not an isolated incident," Nick Aiossa, director at Transparency International EU, told DW. "This seems to be a scheme that that ran over many years, involved many entities cross-border." Without the proper checks in place, he adds, this could easily happen again today. It is true that this is far from the first time that European MEPs have been caught misusing EU money. In March, Marine Le Pen was sentenced in France to four years probation and banned from holding political office after being found guilty of embezzling European parliamentary funds through a fake jobs scam. She has appealed the ruling. And it's not only the far right. Past scandals have implicated politicians across the spectrum. The so-called Qatargate scandal in 2023 exposed bribery and cash-for-influence schemes involving current and former MEPs. And in 2018, investigative journalists went to court seeking further information on what's known as "general expenditure allowance," or GEA, an amount paid monthly to MEPs for expenses like running an office and travel. MEPs get over €4,000 a month in GEA — this adds up to over €40 million a year — but don't have to provide information on how they've spent it. At the time, investigative journalists found over 200 of what they called "ghost offices." A court denied the journalists the information and the lack of transparency and accountability around the GEAs has remained a sore point. Despite repeated scandals, the European Parliament has failed to implement meaningful reforms, Aiossa says. He argues that the institution has done itself lasting damage — first by refusing to respond decisively when issues arose, and then by continuing to tolerate weak accountability and integrity systems. The result, he warns, is a steady erosion of public trust. At the core of the problem lies the structure of parliamentary finances, according to Aiossa. Instead of managing budgets directly, the European Parliament delegates this responsibility to the political groups themselves. Groups are required to conduct annual audits but those are done according to random sampling, which means misuse of funds may not be detected. This means that the responsibility of how party group money is spent lies primarily with its party leadership, particularly its financial officers and secretary general. This, according to Aiossa, has to change. "The parliament needs to take a much more proactive approach in managing this money itself and not delegating that responsibility just to the political groups." German MEP Niclas Herbst, a member of the conservative Christian Democrats, who chairs the Parliament's committee on budgetary control, agrees. "This is taxpayers money and we want it back," he told journalists. He plans to push for criminal charges on this latest case at the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), to show that there must be accountability. Aiossa warns that unless the European Parliament seizes this moment to enact serious reforms, including transparency on allowances, competitive bidding for contracts and direct control over group budgets, public trust in the body will only continue to erode.
DW
17 hours ago
- DW
'One event' arms pause troubling for Ukraine – DW – 07/04/2025
The US says its pause on arms shipments is a one-off. But amid the turbulent US-Ukraine relationship, the assurance is little comfort to Volodymyr Zelenskyy or his European supporters. Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy will seek "clarity" from Donald Trump on Friday amid a challenging week that saw a scheduled US arms shipment paused and Kyiv pummeled by another Russian drone strike. The US confirmed earlier this week that a batch of arms shipments to Ukraine would be paused in yet another reminder that the eastern European country's supply of advanced military equipment is not as secure as it once was. The US has downplayed this decision to withhold crucial arms shipments to Ukraine, as a state department spokesperson told reporters it was a one-off. "This is not a cessation of us assisting Ukraine or of providing weapons," said spokeswoman Tammy Bruce. "This is one event and one situation, and we'll discuss what else comes up in future." The US president has continued to press both sides of the conflict to negotiate a ceasefire and spoke with Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the matter on Thursday. But progress, according to Trump said, was limited. "I didn't make any progress with him today at all," he told reporters. "I'm not happy about that. I'm not happy… I don't think he's looking to stop." Russia followed that call with a massive drone strike on the Ukrainian capital. Zelenskyy is due to speak with Trump on Friday about the shipment pause. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The pair have had a strained relationship during Trump's second term, publicly evidenced in a televised falling out during a White House sit-down in early March. Following the disastrous visit, Zelenskyy sought to shore up support closer to home with key European allies. Europe has since stepped up their support in financial and supply terms. But if the US were to continue to withhold support, it would significantly undermine Ukraine's position versus Russia. "If this were to be a longer-term issue, it would definitely be a challenge for Ukraine to cope," Jana Kobzova, a senior policy fellow specializing at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told DW. "Partly because some of the US systems are not easily replaceable, that goes especially for air defense, but also some of the longer-range capabilities which Ukraine has started to produce domestically but not in the quantities needed." Despite the spat between Trump and Zelenskyy, the pause on shipments could be as much about the US needing to weigh its own interests against the support it gives to dozens of other countries, including Israel. "After the Israel-Iranian exchange, I can imagine that Trump wants to relocate resources," Marina Miron, a defense researcher specializing in military technology and Russian capability at Kings College London, UK, told DW. Brent Sadler, a research fellow at the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, told Politico the move is likely a "due diligence" measure to ensure adequate resourcing for US forces elsewhere, including the Indo-Pacific in the event of a conflict outbreak in that region. Retired US Army General Ben Hodges, took a different view, saying the shipment pause was not about stockpiles. "It's a choice of this administration to placate Russia, at the expense of Ukraine," Hodges said. "It also shows the very limited understanding this administration [has] of the importance to America's strategic interests to help Ukraine and Europe deter Russia." Irrespective of the US' reasons for pausing its military shipments, the signals from the first months of the new administration suggest Europe's transatlantic ally is not the steadfast partner it once was. "There is a sober analysis both in Kyiv and the European part of NATO that relying on US military assistance to continue forever in Ukraine is not an option," said Kobzova. "And that has been there ever since March when the assistance was stopped for the first time." Among the American weapons due for shipping were Patriot air defense missiles and precision-guided artillery, according to officials speaking to newswires anonymously. The pause on these shipments comes at a critical time, with Russia ramping up weapons production and attacks. Those include strikes on soldier draft hubs in Poltava, the national capital Kyiv, the port city Odesa, and ground advances in key regions in Eastern Ukraine. Despite increased spending on defense from Europe's NATO members — now 5% of GDP following its June meeting — any long-term US stall on weapons will likely squeeze Ukraine and its neighbors. "There is recognition at the political level … that [Europe] would need to be increasing production, but none of that happens quickly enough for Ukraine," said Kobzova. Kobzova also pointed to investments being made into Ukraine's own defense industry to buffer against future supply-line cuts from the US. Europe is now the biggest investor in Ukraine's domestic defense industry. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video But even that might not be enough. Experts interviewed by DW highlighted the offer made by Zelenskyy to directly purchase armaments from the US, but in reality, arms manufacturing is a time-consuming process. "It takes two years to produce one [air defense missile] battery," the defense expert Miron told DW. "So even if you buy them now, it doesn't mean that they will be on the battlefield. You place a purchase order and you get in the queue." Finding a way to more effectively repair and adapt equipment for different missiles could be a potential stopgap to meet immediate needs. But, as defense supplies are again in doubt, Miron questioned whether Ukraine has what it needs to push back Russia's offensive. "The problem is time and money and we also have the variable of people," she said, adding that about 90 people are needed to operate a Patriot air missile battery. And Ukraine, Miron pointed out, is losing people, with no guarantee of replacement as the war grinds through its fourth year. Ukraine's support in Europe has been increasing — both rhetorically and materially. As it took over the presidency of the EU for the next six months, Denmark has seized the early opportunity to put Ukraine's membership application into the bloc back on the agenda. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on Thursday said the EU "must strengthen Ukraine. And we must weaken Russia." "Ukraine is essential to Europe's security. Our contribution to Ukraine is also a protection of our freedom. Ukraine belongs in the European Union. It is in both in Denmark's and Europe's interest." Her comments come on the back of a visit to Ukraine from German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who branded Ukraine's plight Berlin's most important foreign policy task. These statements from Europe might be more important than ever, as Miron says she is pessimistic about the future of the US-Ukraine relationship. "Certainly you can try some diplomacy, and explain to Trump that Ukraine matters, but I think Trump has already made up his mind," she said. "Trump has much more to solve with Russia in terms of global problems than with Ukraine."
DW
19 hours ago
- DW
EU and Germany push for a new World Trade Organization – DW – 07/04/2025
Brussels and Berlin have launched a new initiative aimed at bypassing the long-standing paralysis of the World Trade Organization (WTO) caused by the United States. But how viable is such a solution? A proposal, introduced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, has sparked considerable attention. Speaking at the end of a summit of EU leaders in Brussels on June 27, they floated the idea of the EU taking the lead in forming an alternative to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the world trade body that has been in place since 1995. Merz said the idea was in its early stages but could include mechanisms to resolve disputes, as the WTO was meant to do. "You all know that the WTO doesn't work anymore," he said, adding that a "new kind of trade organization" could gradually replace "what we no longer have with the WTO." The German chancellor was referring to the near-total breakdown of the WTO's dispute resolution mechanism. It was former US President Barack Obama who first blocked appointments to the WTO's Appellate Body — its top court for trade disputes — during his later years in office. That blockade has continued under every US administration since, regardless of party affiliation, as successive governments have opposed WTO rulings that they argue undermine US national interests. As a result, trade disputes can no longer be conclusively resolved once a party appeals. Currently, unresolved cases include disputes between the EU and Indonesia over nickel ore exports, rulings on subsidies for aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus, and anti-dumping cases against China. The EU's von der Leyen emphasized plans for a particularly close partnership with like-minded trade nations in Asia, referencing potential cooperation with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This trade alliance currently includes Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The United Kingdom has also joined, becoming the first European country in the bloc. But can Europe realistically create a new WTO without US involvement? And how effective would an alliance with like-minded global partners be, especially in the Asia-Pacific? Jürgen Matthes, an international trade policy expert at the Cologne, Germany-based German Economic Institute (IW), expressed support for the initiative in an interview with DW. "A formal EU application to join the CPTPP would be a strategically important move in several respects," Matthes said. "It would send a clear signal to the US that its protectionism is isolating it, while the rest of the world continues to liberalize trade." Matthes also said this would create a "remarkably large trans-regional trade agreement," involving major economies, "with the EU as the largest bloc." "It would cover nearly all continents. And maybe some African countries could be brought on board as well," he added. Such a club, however, would initially exclude China, which Matthes argued is not known for playing by fair competition rules. "The goal is to form a strategic trade alliance that addresses today's pressing issues in global trade — not only US protectionism, but also the massive market distortions caused by China's subsidies, which current WTO rules don't effectively address," said Matthes. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video For the EU, the priority would be to enshrine strict competition rules within the new framework, particularly regarding state-owned enterprises and industrial subsidies. "Anyone who meets those standards can join," he added. That would require China to make major reforms, such as reducing market distortions and subsidies, or finally agreeing to a comprehensive overhaul of WTO rules. Free trade advocates have already created a workaround to the WTO's stalled appeals process called the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA). Formed within the WTO itself, MPIA provides an alternative dispute resolution system that functions without US participation. According to the European Commission, 57 countries, representing 57.6% of global trade, have joined the MPIA, including the UK and all EU member states. Still, business groups such as the Federation of German Wholesale, Foreign Trade and Services (BGA), which represents Germany's export sector, are wary of undermining the WTO. Speaking to news agency Reuters, BGA President Dirk Jandura acknowledged the strategic benefits of forming a new framework among functioning democracies via CPTPP, but warned of the risks. "We must not allow global trade to splinter into competing blocs with different rules," he said. "This new organization must only be a transitional solution, clearly aimed at reforming — not replacing — the WTO." Brussels has also been careful to clarify that the goal is not to render the WTO obsolete. EU Commission President von der Leyen described the "structured cooperation" with CPTPP members as a potential starting point for reshaping the WTO. Even the WTO's former chief economist, Ralph Ossa, who recently returned to the University of Zurich, openly acknowledged the need for change. "Does the WTO need reform? Absolutely," he told DW. Germany's economy ministry echoed that view, with a spokesperson for Minister Katharina Reiche confirming that the German government, together with the European Commission, is actively pushing for WTO reforms. These include new rules to curb industrial subsidies to ensure fair competition, digital trade initiatives, and investment facilitation. The EU is already in talks with countries that support open and rules-based trade — including CPTPP members. The EU's dual message to both the US and China appears to be part of a deliberate communication strategy that has evolved since US President Donald Trump's tariff war. Matthes envisions a new alliance under the banner of "Open Markets with Fair Trade." In such a setup, "the US is out when it comes to open markets, and China is out when it comes to fair trade — unless things change under a new US administration or a reformed China emerges." He sees multiple advantages to this strategy. "We'd achieve more trade liberalization and gain access to new markets. We'd isolate the US more and show Trump that protectionism is ultimately a dead end." At the same time, Europe could send a clear message to China that it will no longer tolerate market distortions, he added.
