EU official Ursula von der Leyen comfortably survives confidence vote
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.
In a moment of global volatility and unpredictability, the EU needs strength, vision, and the capacity to act.
We need everyone to deliver on our common challenges.Together.
As external forces seek to destabilize and divide us, it is our duty to respond in line with our…
— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) July 10, 2025
Ms von der Leyen was not present for the vote, but taking to social media, she posted: 'As external forces seek to destabilize and divide us, it is our duty to respond in line with our values. Thank you, and long live Europe.'
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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
a few seconds ago
- Daily Mail
EU condemns Zelensky's 'serious step back' as mass protests break out in Kyiv streets over signing of his controversial anti-corruption bill
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has come under fire after signing a bill that strips two key anti-corruption agencies of their autonomy. The move has triggered rare mass protests in Kyiv and backlash from the European Union. Hundreds have taken to the streets in the capital to rebuke the legislation in a public display of anger that has not been seen since the start of Russia 's invasion. Critics now say the law will hand sweeping control to Zelensky and permit political interference in corruption investigations. The European Union has branded the president's decision a 'serious step back' with a senior official suggesting it could jeopardise the country's hopes of joining the bloc. Writing on X, EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos condemned the vote, saying independent anti-corruption institutions were 'essential for Ukraine's EU path'. She said: 'Seriously concerned over today's vote. The dismantling of key safeguards protecting NABU's independence is a serious step back.' The law, approved by 263 votes to 13 in Ukraine's parliament, will place the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) under the authority of the prosecutor general, who is appointed by the president. NABU is tasked with investigating corruption in public institutions, while SAPO handles prosecution. The Anti-Corruption Action Centre, an NGO, warned the bill would gut both bodies, saying the prosecutor general would 'stop investigations into all of the president's friends'. Protesters gathered outside government buildings to voice their outrage, and erupted in boos and jeers when news broke that it had been signed. A European diplomat speaking anonymously told reporters the decision was 'unfortunate'. According to the AFP, the official said: 'Is it a setback? Yes. Is this a point of non-return? No.' Meanwhile, the country's former foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, who resigned from the government in 2024, called it a 'bad day for Ukraine'. He said: 'Now the President has a choice - to stand on the side of the people or not.' Just a day before the vote, law enforcement raided NABU's offices, detaining an employee accused of spying for Russia. Transparency International's office in Ukraine described the raids as an 'attempt by the authorities to undermine the independence of Ukraine's post-Revolution of Dignity anti-corruption institutions.' Critics help up signs to protest against the law, which critics say will hand sweeping control to Zelensky and permit political interference in corruption investigations Ukraine ranked 105th out of 180 countries in Transparency International's 2024 corruption perceptions index, a notable improvement from 144th in 2013. The nation's recent anti-corruption drive has been central to its push for EU membership and a condition for receiving support from Western allies.
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
‘Moldova is worse than Ukraine': My clash with Russian sympathisers fighting the EU
Not all battles are fought with bullets. The Telegraph have travelled to Chisinau, the capital of Moldova, during a vital geopolitical crossroads on Europe's eastern flank. To its east is Ukraine, a country fighting for its very survival. To its west is Romania, a member of Nato and the European Union. Moldova is a member of neither and for many, that puts it in Putin's sights. The Telegraph has explored the dangers facing Moldova and the ramifications not only for Ukraine and Europe, but also for the wider West. If there were such a thing as a second Cold War, Chisinau would be on the front line. To hear more about this story, listen to our award-winning podcast, Ukraine: The Latest.
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Want to import toxic chemicals into Britain with scant scrutiny? Labour says: go right ahead
It's what the extreme right of the Tory party wanted from Brexit: to tear down crucial public protections, including those that defend us from the most brutal and dangerous forms of capital. The Conservatives lost office before they were able to do their worst. But never mind, because Labour has now picked up the baton. A month ago, so quietly that most of us missed it, the government published a consultation on deregulating chemicals. While most consultations last for 12 weeks, this one runs for eight, half of which cover the holiday period – it closes on 18 August. The intention is set out at the beginning: to reduce 'costs to business'. This, as repeated statements by Keir Starmer make clear, means tearing up the rules. If, the consultation proposes, a chemical has been approved by a 'trusted foreign jurisdiction', it should be approved for use in the UK. No list is given of what these trusted jurisdictions are. It will be up to ministers to decide: they can add such countries through statutory instruments, which means without full parliamentary scrutiny. In one paragraph the document provides what sounds like an assurance: these jurisdictions should have standards 'similar to and at least as high as those in Great Britain'. Three paragraphs later, the assurance is whisked away: the government would be able 'to use any evaluation available to it, which it considers reliable, from any foreign jurisdiction'. In this and other respects, the consultation document is opaque, contradictory, lacking clear safeguards and frankly chilling. Lobbyists will point out that a chemical product has been approved for sale in the US, or Thailand or Honduras, then ask the government to add that country as a trusted jurisdiction. If the government agrees, 'domestic evaluation' would be 'removed', meaning that no UK investigation of the product's health and environmental impacts will be required. In the US, to give one example, a wide range of dangerous chemical products are approved for uses that are banned here and in many other countries. The government has fired the gun on a race to the bottom. To make matters worse, once a country has been added to the list of trusted jurisdictions, all the biocidal products it authorises for use could, the consultation says, be 'automatically approved' for use here. The proposed new rules, in other words, look like a realisation of the fantasy entertained by the ultra-rightwing Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg in 2016: 'We could say, if it's good enough in India, it's good enough for here … We could take it a very long way.' There is in fact a means of reducing costs while maintaining high standards: simply mirror EU rules. Though far from perfect, they set the world's highest standards for chemical regulation. Mirroring them as they evolve would avoid the pointless institutional replication and total regulatory meltdown our chemicals system has suffered since we left the EU. But we can't have that, as it would mean backtracking on Brexit, which would be BETRAYAL. Adopting the weaker standards of other states at the behest of foreign corporations, by contrast, is the height of patriotism. The divergence from European standards is likely to mean breaking the terms of the EU-UK trade and cooperation agreement, as well as landing Northern Ireland in an even greater quandary, as it remains in both the EU single market and the UK internal market. In many cases, deregulation delivers bureaucratic chaos. The consultation also suggests the removal of all expiry dates for the approval of active chemical substances. The default position would be that, as long as a foreign jurisdiction has approved a product, allowing it to be used in the UK, it stays on the books indefinitely. Those arguing that new evidence should lead to its deletion from the approved list would have a mountain to climb. Worse still, the consultation proposes removing any obligation on the Health and Safety Executive to maintain a publicly available database of the harmful properties of chemical substances on the UK market. No wonder they kept it quiet. Yes, these proposals might reduce costs for business. But the inevitable result is to transfer them to society. Already, we face a massive contamination crisis as a result of regulatory failure in this country, as compounds such as Pfas ('forever chemicals'), microplastics and biocides spread into our lives. If the decontamination of land and water is possible, it will cost hundreds of times more than any profits made by industry as a result of lax rules. In reality, we will carry these costs in our bodies and our ecosystems, indefinitely. The true price is incalculable. Many have paid with their lives, health, education or livelihoods for previous 'bonfires of red tape': through the Grenfell Tower disaster, filthy rivers, collapsing classrooms, consumer rip-offs and the 2008 financial crisis. But as long as these costs can be shifted off corporate and current government balance sheets, that is deemed a win for business and win for the Treasury. Earlier this month, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told financiers in her Mansion House speech that regulation 'acts as a boot on the neck of businesses'. In reality, business acts as a boot on the neck of democracy, a boot the government slathers with kisses. Before the general election last year, Reeves told an assembly of corporate CEOs: 'I hope when you read our manifesto, or see our priorities, that you see your fingerprints all over them.' The catastrophic planning reforms the government is now forcing through parliament were hatched, she told them, at a 'smoked salmon and scrambled eggs breakfast' with corporate lobbyists. This was just one instance of a massive pre-election grovelling offensive, involving hundreds of meetings behind closed doors with corporations, which shaped Labour's plans and explains so much of what has gone wrong since. The point and purpose of the Labour party was to resist economic warfare by the rich against the rest. Starmer and Reeves have turned their party into the opposite of what it once was. Capital demands three things at once: that the government strip away the rules defending the public interest from ruthless profit-making; that the government regulate itself with insanely restrictive pledges, such as Reeves's fiscal rules; and that the public is regulated with ever more draconian laws, such as those restricting protest. It gets what it asks for. Everything must give way to capital, but capital must give way to nothing. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
