EU official Ursula von der Leyen comfortably survives confidence vote
The motion contained a mix of allegations against Ms von der Leyen, including text messaging privately with the chief executive of vaccine maker Pfizer during the Covid-19 pandemic, misuse of EU funds and interference in elections in Germany and Romania.
Advertisement
The motion was defeated in a 360-175 vote against it, with 18 legislators choosing to abstain during a plenary session at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen delivering a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, eastern France (Pascal Bastien/AP)
Ms von der Leyen was not present for the vote.
The vote has been a lightning rod for criticism of Ms von der Leyen – who led the EU drive to find vaccines for around 450 million citizens during the pandemic – and her European People's Party (EPP), which is the largest political family in the assembly.
They are accused of cosying up to the hard right to push through their agenda.
Advertisement
The EU parliament shifted perceptibly to the political right after Europe-wide elections a year ago.
'We won't vote with the far-right and we do not support this motion. This vote was little more than a far-right PR stunt from Putin-loving populists,' Greens group president Terry Reintke said in a statement after the poll, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
However, she added: 'We are ready to build pro-European majorities, but we will not be played by the EPP in their desperate deregulation agenda and their desire to consistently form anti-European majorities with the far-right.'
The censure motion, the first at the European Parliament in more than a decade, was brought against the European Commission president by a group of hard-right legislators.
Advertisement
On the eve of the vote, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Facebook that it would 'be the moment of truth: on one side the imperial elite in Brussels, on the other patriots and common sense. There is no getting out of it, it is essential to make a choice'.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (Leon Neal/PA)
He posted: 'Madam President, the essence of leadership is responsibility. Time to go!'
Ms von der Leyen's commission has frequently clashed with Mr Orban over his staunchly nationalist government's moves to roll back democracy.
The European Commission has frozen Hungary's access to billions of euros in EU funds.
Advertisement
The second biggest group, the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), has said that the censure motion was a result 'of the EPP's irresponsibility and the double games'.
During debate on Monday, S&D leader Iratxe Garcia Perez said to the EPP: 'Who do you want to govern with? Do you want to govern with those that want to destroy Europe, or those of us who fight every day to build it?'
The EPP has notably worked with the hard right to fix the agenda for hearing Ms von der Leyen's new commissioners when they were questioned for their suitability for their posts last year, and to reject an ethics body meant to combat corruption.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Diane Abbott suspended AGAIN by Labour after repeating belief that anti-Semitism is less serious than racism endured by black people
Diane Abbott was suspended by Labour for the second time in three years today for claiming anti-Semitism is less serious than racism aimed at people because of their skin colour. The veteran backbencher lost the whip after using a BBC interview to say she had no regrets about her 2023 claim about anti-Jew and anti-Traveller discrimination. And she reiterated the opinions aired in a letter to the Observer two years ago that led to her losing the whip and making a public apology. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Reflections programme, she said: 'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know (what they are). 'I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism. 'I don't know why people would say that.' Her reiteration of her views heaped pressure on Sir Keir Starmer to take action against her as he did in 2023. A party spokesman said: 'Diane Abbott has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party, pending an investigation.' It comes a day after he stripped the whip from four leftwing labour backbenchers for 'persistent breaches of party discipline' while blocking his welfare reforms. After today's comments, a spokesman for the Jewish Labour Movement said: 'Anti-Semitism is anti-Jewish racism. 'It targets Jews regardless of how they look, and many of our community are visibly Jewish and suffer racism for it. 'We are disappointed that Diane Abbott MP has doubled down on comments she previously appeared to apologise for, and are pleased to hear that Labour are looking into them.' The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP was suspended by the Labour Party in 2023 after suggested that Jewish, Irish and Traveller people experience 'prejudice' but 'are not all their lives subject to racism'. 'They undoubtedly experience prejudice,' Ms Abbott wrote in the Observer. 'This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable. 'It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. 'But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. 'In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.' Ms Abbott issued a public apology in 2023 to 'wholly and unreservedly withdraw my remarks and disassociate myself from them' She later issued a statement to 'wholly and unreservedly withdraw my remarks and disassociate myself from them' as she blamed drafting 'errors'. But Labour pushed ahead with action against the ex-shadow minister in any case. She was given the whip back before the 2024 election but was at the centre of a fresh party row then when attempts were made to stop her from running for re-election in her north London seat. She eventually was allowed to stand as a Labour candidate and won with a much reduced majority of 15,000 in one of the party's safest seats. The longest-serving female MP in the Commons, who entered Parliament in 1987, told the BBC last night she got a 'bit weary' about people labelling her anti-Semetic and said she had 'spent a lifetime fighting racism of all kinds'. She said she was 'grateful' to be a Labour MP but was sure the party leadership had been 'trying to get me out'.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on an EU army: leadership and unity remain elusive
The Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, called for the creation of a European army earlier this year, suggesting that, this time, the continent might finally be serious. Defence budgets are rising. Threats are mounting. The US is distracted. Surely now is the moment. Except, of course, it isn't. For all the political soundbites that rattle sabres with increasing confidence, Europe is probably no closer to fielding a unified military force than it was when the French rejected the European Defence Community in 1954. The problem is not one of capacity. Europe, including the UK, collectively boasts about 1.5m active military personnel, and some of the world's most successful defence firms. The problem, as ever, is politics. Or more precisely: who leads? Germany, claiming a Zeitenwende (turning point), and asking the EU to exempt military investment from budget rules, might be the frontrunner. Poland is spending more as a share of GDP than anyone. The French would like to think they would be at the front of any queue. But their Gaullist, unilateral instincts run deep. Italy has industrial knowhow but lacks the economic heft. Post-Brexit, the UK is building bridges with the EU's military powers but it still sees itself as Nato's keystone. And the Baltic states? They want no European project that might scare off Washington. Even defining a European army is difficult. Would it be a single force under the EU flag, combining the 27 national armed forces of the EU members into one common force? Or something looser, to keep Irish and Austrian neutrality intact? Could it be a smaller European intervention force? Or a joint effort by regional groupings in a new hat? The short answer is no one can agree on anything but disagreement. Squabbling might not be the best response to an increasingly assertive, hawkish and unpredictable Russian giant. Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine made territorial defence a pressing concern. Suddenly, Europe remembered why armies exist. Brussels pins its hopes of an industrial renaissance on a five-year rearmament plan that is meant to reduce reliance on US contractors. European firms like Rheinmetall and MBDA are scaling up, but the economies of scale found in the US military industrial complex elude the continent. Everyone wants to protect their local champion. No wonder the bloc has appointed a commissioner for defence whose role is about overseeing the companies making drones, shells and missiles – not the armed forces per se. A Gallup poll in 45 countries last year showed deep ambivalence toward war among Europeans. Four of the five least willing to fight were in the EU – including Spain, Germany, and Italy, where only 14% said they'd take up arms. Even in frontline states like Poland and Lithuania, fewer than half were willing to fight. This pacifist mood reflects an EU integration designed to make war between member states unthinkable. The irony is that the European army is seen as a symbol of independence from the US – while quietly relying on American satellites, command structures and munitions. Many European countries have upped defence spending, but they are not ready to go it alone. An integrated force would demand pooled sovereignty, unified command and a level of political consensus that don't currently exist. That may change. But for now, Europe continues to depend on Washington's capricious leadership – even as it dreams of 'strategic autonomy'.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Like Clement Attlee, Keir Starmer must rise to the occasion
Martin Kettle rightly says Aneurin Bevan is the one politician other than Clement Attlee whom Labour leaders regularly invoke (Critics say Starmer is no Attlee – and they're right. Labour must look to the future, not the past, 31 July). Keir Starmer has drawn on Harold Wilson for inspiration, but more pertinent to Kettle's argument is David Lammy claiming a role model in Ernest Bevin. Made minister of labour in 1940 and foreign secretary in 1945, Ernie Bevin dominated the decade. Bevin sought a continued US military presence in Europe but had no illusions about the 'special relationship'. The 1956 Suez crisis was a calamitous reality check, confirming the White House's prioritising of US self-interest above any presumed obligation to an ally, however close. Larry Elliott's pessimism over Trump's trade deal with Europe is understandable (This trade deal is the EU's Suez moment – its subservience to Trump is on show for all to see, 31 July), but the EU can take heart from how France responded to the United States torpedoing its joint effort with the UK to regain control of the Suez canal: a renewed commitment to pan-European economic collaboration saw the swift confirmation of a six-nation common market, and a determination that French foreign policy would never again be subject to transatlantic pressure saw the Fourth and then the Fifth Republic develop its own advanced weaponry, both conventional and nuclear. Had Attlee, not Eden, been prime minister in 1956, we can be certain that he would never have sanctioned collusion with France and Israel to invade Egypt, and then repeatedly denied having done so. Attlee's greatest quality wasn't succinctness – it was SmithEmeritus professor of modern history, University of Southampton I do not feel Martin Kettle is entirely fair or correct to say that Clement Attlee, on becoming prime minister, 'pulled Britain out of India as fast as he could'. Attlee had been closely involved in India for more than 20 years, going back to the Simon commission, which had been established in 1927, specifically to consider the possibility of Indian independence and self-rule. As an MP and a member of the commission, Attlee visited India several times before the war (no mean feat in those days), understood the issues and knew the leaders of the political parties and factions. He did not underestimate the problems that independence might bring (although certainly not the violence and bloodshed), noting that partition would 'necessarily leave minorities in both states' but emphasising that his Labour government was 'in earnest in seeking to implement the promises made by Britain'. Eighty years on, another Labour prime minister now faces similar challenges over Palestine. I am sure Keir Starmer, like his distinguished predecessor, will rise to the EvansFormer chair of the south Asia delegation, European parliament Martin Kettle's interesting article on Clement Attlee referred to his wife driving him to Buckingham Palace to meet King George VI on his historic 1945 victory over Churchill. Mrs Attlee was apparently a notoriously bad driver. My late father told me Mrs Attlee once collided with his car when driving the prime minister on a foggy night in London. Fortunately, no one was ArnfieldVancouver, Canada Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
