EU's von der Leyen to face no confidence vote
The motion delivered to the European Parliament's plenary session Wednesday reached the minimum requirement of 72 signatures to set a date for the vote.
MEPs will debate the motion on Monday in Strasbourg ahead of the vote the following Thursday.
Initiating the move, far-right Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea criticized a lack of transparency from von der Leyen related to text message exchanges with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during the Covid pandemic, when the bloc was negotiating the purchase of vaccines.
Their exchange has spurred complaints from numerous anti-vaccine groups, as well as the New York Times, which sought access to the messages in question.
Piperea meanwhile also accused the European Commission of 'interference' in Romania's presidential election that saw nationalist George Simion lose to pro-European Nicusor Dan.
Chances of von der Leyen losing the no confidence vote are slim.
Piperea's own political group ECR has already distanced itself from the motion.
'It's not an initiative of our group,' an ECR spokesperson said.
For the motion to succeed, it would require an absolute majority — at least 361 of the 720 votes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Ukraine blames Russian strike for power cut to Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant
VIENNA: All external power lines supplying electricity to the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine were down for several hours on Friday, the UN nuclear watchdog said, but the station's management later said power had been restored. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, acknowledged that power had been restored after 3 1/2 hours. But he added in a statement on X that nuclear safety 'remains extremely precarious in Ukraine.' Ukraine's energy minister blamed Russian shelling for severing the last power line to the plant and its six reactors. The country's power distribution operator said its technicians had taken action to restore it. Europe's biggest nuclear power plant, which is not operating but still requires power to keep its nuclear fuel cool, switched during the outage to running on diesel generators, the IAEA said. The organization has repeatedly warned of the risk of a catastrophic accident at Zaporizhzhia, which is located near the front line in the war in Ukraine. Its reactors are shut down, but the nuclear fuel inside them still needs to be cooled, which requires constant power. The plant's Russia-installed management issued a statement on Telegram saying the high-voltage line to the plant had been restored. The statement said there had been no disruptions to operations at the plant, no violations of security procedures and no rise in background radiation levels beyond normal levels. The IAEA had earlier said that the plant had lost all off-site power for the ninth time during the military conflict and for the first time since late 2023. 'The ZNPP currently relies on power from its emergency diesel generators, underlining (the) extremely precarious nuclear safety situation,' it said. Ukrainian Energy Minister German Galuschenko wrote on Telegram that a Russian strike had cut off the plant. 'The enemy struck the power line connecting the temporarily occupied (Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant) with the integrated power system of Ukraine.' Ukrenergo, the sole operator of high-voltage lines in Ukraine, said its specialists had brought it back into service. 'Ukrenergo specialists have brought back into service the high-voltage line which supplies the temporarily occupied power station,' it said on Telegram. Neither the IAEA nor the plant's Russian-installed management initially cited a cause for the cut-off. Russian forces seized the Zaporizhzhia station in the first weeks of Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Each side regularly accuses the other of firing or taking other actions that could trigger a nuclear accident.
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
Pentagon has undermined Trump's goal of Ukraine peace
The US Department of Defense halted deliveries of Patriot air defense systems and other precision weapons to Ukraine last week following an internal assessment of its own stockpiles. Some of these weapons were already in Poland waiting for final transfer. The news came as a shock. While the Trump administration has taken a more nuanced approach to Ukraine and Russia than its predecessor, it had continued the flow of weapons to Kyiv as leverage in its effort to bring Moscow to the negotiating table. The timing could not be worse. Russia has launched some of the most intense aerial bombardments in the history of its invasion, including night-time barrages of more than 400 drones and ballistic missiles at a time. For Ukraine, already stretched thin on ammunition and air defense capabilities, this freeze in support threatens to make a difficult situation even more dire. The decision also undermines President Donald Trump's stated goal of ending the war. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly emphasized the need to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated settlement and made it a cornerstone of his foreign policy. But six months after he returned to the Oval Office, the war appears no closer to resolution than it was on his first day. There is no doubt the president has been sincere in his desire to bring the two sides to the table. He has called for a ceasefire and for negotiations, and Ukraine has signaled its willingness to work with the White House. The Kremlin, however, has been far more reluctant. Trump has hinted at increasing pressure on Russia to engage more seriously in diplomacy. That's precisely why the Pentagon's decision to halt aid is so surprising — and damaging. Trump appeared to have geopolitical momentum on his side. His bold military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, an action many believed he would never take, restored a sense of American credibility abroad, especially after what many saw as the Biden administration's appeasement of Tehran. Then, at the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump had a major win. He convinced European allies to commit to significantly increased defense spending, including a landmark pledge to reach 5 percent of GDP by 2035 — spending levels not seen even during the Cold War. At that same summit, a Ukrainian journalist asked Trump about the urgent need for air defense systems to protect civilians from Russian missile attacks. The president responded with genuine emotion. He said he would return to Washington and explore the possibility of sending more Patriot missile interceptors to Ukraine. Days later, however, his own Department of Defense contradicted both his words and apparent intent. There is no doubt Trump has been sincere in his desire to bring the two sides to the table. Luke Coffey This is not the first time the Pentagon has acted out of sync with the president. In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a temporary halt to military assistance to Ukraine without coordinating with the White House. That pause lasted only a few days, but it rattled allies and partners across Europe and sent shockwaves through Kyiv. At the time, the White House quietly aired its frustration. Now, it appears the Pentagon may be repeating the same mistake. This latest move underscores a deeper problem: an ideological struggle within the Trump administration over US foreign policy. On one side are the isolationists who believe America should retreat from global commitments and focus exclusively on domestic concerns. They see little value in supporting Ukraine or NATO, or even maintaining a robust defense budget, since their vision of America's role in the world is minimal at best. Opposing them are the so-called prioritizers, who believe the US should focus nearly all of its strategic energy and resources on Asia, and particularly on countering the growing threat from China. In this view, America must prepare for a potential conflict over Taiwan, even if doing so means deprioritizing Europe or the Middle East. Every dollar spent and every missile deployed must serve the Indo-Pacific theater first. Both factions, for different reasons, see Ukraine as a distraction, so when aid is withheld, both are satisfied. As long as this internal tug-of-war continues, behind closed doors and in public, the president will struggle to implement a coherent and effective foreign policy. Trump may be most comfortable dealing with issues such as trade, the economy, and border security, but the reality is that global leadership also requires strategic clarity on defense and diplomacy. To succeed, he needs a team aligned with his vision — not one that undermines it. Now is the time for Trump to reassert control and redouble efforts to end Russia's war in a way that promotes lasting European stability and delivers a fair, just outcome for Ukraine. Achieving this will probably be one of the most difficult foreign policy challenges of his presidency. But he cannot meet that challenge with a divided administration. He needs a unified front — particularly from his Department of Defense. The sooner Trump reverses the Pentagon's decision to halt military aid to Ukraine, the better the prospects for peace. Time is of the essence, and any further delay could cost lives — and squander the strategic gains he has worked hard to achieve.
Arab News
9 hours ago
- Arab News
What We Are Reading Today: ‘State of Ridicule'
Author: Dan Sperrin Satire is a funny, aggressive, and largely oppositional literature which is typically created by people who refuse to participate in a given regime's perception of itself. Although satire has always been a primary literature of state affairs, and although it has always been used to intervene in ongoing discussions about political theory and practice, there has been no attempt to examine this fascinating and unusual literature across the full chronological horizon. In 'State of Ridicule,' Dan Sperrin provides the first ever longue durée history of political satire in British literature. He traces satire's many extended and discontinuous trajectories through time while also chronicling some of the most inflamed and challenging political contexts within which it has been written. Sperrin begins by describing the Roman foundations and substructures of British satire, paying particularly close attention to the core Roman canon: Horace, Persius, and Juvenal.
