Compte rendu in extenso des débats

Lundi 7 juillet 2025 - Strasbourg

11. Motion de censure visant la Commission (débat)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the motion of censure on the Commission (2025/2140(INS)).

I would like to inform Members that there will be only one round of political group speakers for this debate. Therefore, there is no catch-the-eye procedure and no blue cards will be accepted. As I said earlier, the Rules have been very strictly and carefully applied, but I understand Ms Anderson still would like to make a point of order on the motion.

  Christine Anderson (ESN). – Madam President, I base my point of order on Rules 131 and 178. A motion of censure against the Commission has been tabled by over 72 individual Members, not by political groups. Yet, the Conference of Presidents decided to allow only one round of group speakers.

Madam President, this cannot be reconciled with Rule 131, which specifically foresees a genuine debate followed by three days of reflection, and it only makes sense if the Members who initiated this motion are allowed to exchange arguments, not just listen to scripted statements by the presidents of the groups – not to mention the non‑attached Members who are excluded entirely.

This format also fails to reflect the seriousness of the issue and certainly leads me to believe that this House is once again trying to sweep under the rug the numerous allegations against Ursula von der Leyen. Madam President, our job is not to protect Ursula von der Leyen. Our job is to hold her accountable. I therefore respectfully request a full and substantive debate.

  Gheorghe Piperea, autor. – Doamnă Președintă, stimați colegi, moțiunea de cenzură este un instrument constituțional menit a consolida democrația. Nu este o problemă, e șansa unei soluții.

Moțiunea de azi vorbește despre fapte grave și despre principii cruciale încălcate. Lipsa de transparență și încălcarea autorității justiției sunt probate de decizia Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene în speța Pfizer Gate, decizie pe care Comisia Europeană a ales să nu o execute. Despre ineficiența cheltuirii banilor publici din mecanismul de redresare și reziliență vorbesc rapoarte recente ale Curții Europene de Conturi.

Ocolirea dezbaterii și a deciziei în Parlamentul European este motivul pentru care Parlamentul a luat decizia de a da în judecată Comisia la CJUE, fapt unic în istorie. În decursul ultimilor șase ani, Comisia a preluat abuziv atribuții de la statele membre, a încălcat separația puterilor și a ocolit Parlamentul European în deciziile majore. Concentrarea nedemocratică a deciziei în mâinile președintei Comisiei Europene este contrară principiului echilibrului și distribuției puterii. Procesul decizional a devenit opac și discreționar și azi ridică temeri de abuz și corupție.

Costul obsesiei birocrației Uniunii Europene, cum ar fi schimbarea climatică, a fost uriaș. Economic, au crescut falimentele oamenilor simpli și ale antreprenorilor și au apărut riscuri de faliment suveran al statelor membre ale Uniunii Europene. Fragmentarea pieței unice și dublul standard au adâncit falia între regiunile Uniunii Europene. Exemplu: puținii bani din PNRR pe care România a reușit să-i atragă se duc pe importuri, iar nu în dezvoltarea sustenabilă a României. Migrația scăpată de sub control a amorsat bombe sociale. Povara preluării migranților trece la statele mai puțin dezvoltate. Ceea ce se întâmplă acum la granița Germaniei cu Polonia este un scandal, dar devine în curând obișnuință. În timp ce sărăcia și regresul educațional au devenit periculoase, unii dintre decidenți și partenerii lor comerciali și-au pierdut integritatea, dacă au avut-o vreodată.

Industria fricii, oameni buni, este una dintre cele mai profitabile afaceri ale lumii. De aceea, frica s-a răspândit mai repede decât Covidul. În timp ce majoritatea era în suferință, eram în suferință, alții își sporeau averile. Nu crizele distrug lumea, ci lăcomia celor care le monetizează. Moțiunea de azi, oameni buni, invită poporul european la reflecție. Eu provin dintr-o țară cu o experiență de 45 de ani de totalitarism. Vă asigur că niciun cetățean, niciunul, al statelor aflate cândva în sfera de influență a U.R.S.S. nu vrea să retrăiască acele vremuri. Refuzăm modelul sovietic și, deopotrivă, modelul chinezesc sau rusesc de azi.

În ciuda oricăror piedici, vocea poporului s-a făcut auzită. Ne aflăm azi în casa celor 450 de milioane de cetățeni UE. Ei au cerut să deschidem ferestrele și să o aerisim. Ei vor răspunsuri astăzi, așa cum a zis Churchill, acesta este sfârșitul unui început.

  Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, every month we meet here in this plenary to debate the issues that matter the most to Europeans: the daily struggles of workers and families worried about the cost of living; the support we can give to small business owners trying to take their company to the next level; or the need to provide real security as conflict and war rages across the world. And we will do so again in this plenary session.

Today we can all make our own judgements about the merits of the motion in front of us, and each of us can come to our own conclusions about its real intentions. But what we have just heard from Mr Piperea was clear for all to see. It is taken right from the oldest playbook of extremists: polarising society; eroding trust in democracy with false claims about election meddling; attempting to rewrite the history of how successfully Europe overcame the global pandemic together, from vaccines to NextGenerationEU; spinning debunked conspiracies about text messages.

And there is a choice here. We can follow Mr Piperea down his world of conspiracies and alleged sinister plots by what he calls 'Brussels', or we can clearly call this out for what it is: another crude attempt to drive a wedge between our institutions, between the pro-European, pro-democratic forces of this House. We can never let this happen. We will never let this happen.

But I also want to thank Mr Piperea, because I believe it is vital that we have this debate here this evening. Because facts matter; truth matters. But also because I recognise that there are Members who may not have signed this motion, but who do have legitimate concerns about some of the issues it raises. That is fair enough. It is part of our democracy, and I will always be ready to debate any issue that this House wants – with facts and with arguments. This is also why I'm here today with my entire College, to front up to these questions.

So, honourable Members, let me go straight into it. A lot of this seems to go back to the pandemic, so allow me to start by taking you back to the very beginning. None of us will ever forget the tragic images of military trucks rolling through Bergamo at night, piled up with dead bodies. Or when lockdowns were imposed, borders were closed, and crucial health and protective equipment was fought over. I remember all of those times when it could feel like there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

But I've also not forgotten what we achieved together: how a vaccine was developed in record time thanks to European science; how we ramped up industrial production after a slow start; how every Member State was given the same access to life-saving vaccines; how every citizen – whether from a country big or small, east or west, north or south – was given the same chance. This is the Europe of solidarity that I love, and this is the Europe that the extremist hate!

(Applause)

We all remember how we protected workers through SURE, or got our economies moving again thanks to the green lanes and the digital certificate. And, of course, we all remember the historic day we launched NextGeneration EU to inject EUR 800 billion into our economies to invest in everything from health and education, clean tech to digital tech, SMEs to established industries.

No one thought we could ever pull it off or that it would ever be agreed – but we did it together. And this, honourable Members, is the true story of the pandemic – not what the authors of this motion are trying to make of it. We should all be proud of it. And we can never let extremists rewrite history!

(Heckling from the right)

  President. – President von der Leyen, give me a second. Excuse me.

(Heckling)

To all of you screaming: excuse me, I let your colleague speak for much longer than his allotted time. So now we'll let the President of the Commission speak for as long as she needs to defend her motion.

  Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission. – I bring you back to these moments because you cannot find them anywhere in the motion in front of us. And yet they are the essential backdrop to what we are discussing here today. Because they show the unique and unprecedented nature of the situation we were in; how Europe came together after Member States gave us a mandate to act; how it was this Parliament that immediately ensured the continuation of plenary debates to keep our European democracy active.

Thanks to this, we had many debates in this House in the most difficult of moments. These were so important, because it meant that at every step of the way we discussed openly and transparently with this House, with Member States, with European citizens. It was all out there in the public domain.

So yes, it is no secret that I was in contact with top representatives of the companies producing the vaccines that would get us out of the crisis. Of course I was! Just as I sought advice from the best epidemiologists and virologists in the world, or was in touch with the United Nations organisations or with NGOs. But the implication that these contracts were somehow inappropriate or against the European interest is – by any measure – simply wrong.

So let me set the facts straight once again – and for you, it's important to listen to that! Contract negotiations were conducted by the Commission and Member States together. Every single contract negotiated was examined in detail in the capitals before being signed by each of the 27 Member States. There were no secrets, no hidden clauses, no obligation to buy for Member States. Indeed, just listen: all 27 Member States decided to buy their vaccines of their own will. So any claims that any Member State did not know about the contracts, about the prices or the amounts is dishonest. In fact, let's call it by its name: it is simply a lie!

Honourable Members, the wider point I want to make today is that this Commission will always be ready to work with you and to be transparent with you. And this is why, for example, I came to the Conference of Presidents to justify and explain the exceptional use of Article 122 for SAFE, our emergency defence spending proposal. This is exactly what I promised in my guidelines.

The point is: I am committed to working with this House every step of the way. And I want to say that I hear your concerns loud and clear. I will always be ready to be open about our work and find common solutions with the pro-European, pro-democratic forces in this House, and I will always respect the prerogative of this House, because this spirit of compromise is what democracy is about.

But we should be under no illusion about the threats our democracy faces. We have entered into an age – and you hear it there – of struggle between democracy and illiberalism. We see the alarming threats from extremist parties who want to polarise our societies with disinformation. There is no proof that they have any answers, but there's ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere. What we hear from you are movements fuelled by conspiracies, from anti-vaxxers to Putin apologists. And you only have to look at some of the signatories of this motion to understand what I mean.

But the real question here is: what do we do about it? I believe it is up to us to come together, find balanced compromises and deliver for people. Because the rise of illiberal and populist politics does not happen in a vacuum. So the answer can never be to complain about how people voted; it must always be to show that we understand and that we will address their legitimate concerns.

And this is what this Commission and this Parliament have been laser focused on doing since the very first day the College took office. Thanks to this team behind me, this College that you elected, we are delivering an ambitious programme that this House voted on. Whether making historic steps towards defence and security or boosting our competitiveness through the Clean Industrial Deal. Whether sticking to our climate targets or attracting the best researchers in the world to choose Europe. Whether supporting Ukraine and preparing the ground for a future enlargement. Or protecting our farmers and our fishers, as well as the land and the sea they rely on. Whether addressing climate change, the housing crisis, focusing on skills and education – today and in our long-term budget.

I will always protect the rule of law and the core values of our Union. And that's what really matters to the people of Europe. That's what they want us to discuss here in this House. So let's not play the games of the extremists. Let's stand up for Europe and let's deliver for Europeans together.

I want to finish by addressing all pro-European, pro-democracy forces in this House. I know that we do not always agree on every detail of every proposal this College has made. And I cannot promise that we will always agree on everything in the future. But what I can promise is that we will always be ready to work for compromise and work for unity.

When the Commission sits down with the United States to negotiate on trade and tariffs, Europe must show strength. When we stand up for Ukraine's future, Europe must show strength. Or when we go to China to defend our interests, Europe must show strength. And this strength only comes through our unity. So let us come together. Let us keep delivering for Europe. Long live Europe!

(Applause)

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President of the European Parliament, Madam President of the Commission, dear Commissioners, dear colleagues, with this motion of censure, we are wasting time. Putin will like what his friends are doing here. Let's be brief: from an EPP point of view, we will unanimously vote against this motion of censure on Thursday.

Corona: Ursula von der Leyen has said enough. We respect and we applaud the leadership the Commission showed in the last mandate to rescue lives. But what does this motion of censure mean for tomorrow? What is really at risk on Thursday?

In a few days, Donald Trump's tariff pause will end. Millions of jobs are at risk. Where are the MAGA friends in this House? What are Orbán, Salvini and Alice Weidel doing to save the job of Europeans? I tell you, Maroš Šefčovič and Ursula von der Leyen are defending the jobs of Europeans. That's why the motion of censure is putting the citizens' interests at risk.

A second example: the future of millions of farmers, mayors and researchers are depending on European funds – also in Romania, I have to say. We need immediately an MFF proposal. The motion of censure goes against the interests of farmers, mayors and researchers.

And a third example: Putin is testing us every day. We need a European pillar of defence now. We need it urgently. And Putin's ambitions go much beyond Ukraine; he hates our European way of life. And I know the German AfD and the Romanian AUR are the puppets of Putin. But why is PiS now joining this pro-Russian alliance? I am wondering myself why this is happening. This motion of censure is against the security of Europeans, so we will vote against it.

We have now the first year of this mandate. Let's use also today's discussion for more general remarks that we have to clarify from an EPP point of view.

First, we as EPP stand for European democracy. We say, in the lead candidate concept, if von der Leyen is today Commission President, it was not negotiated behind closed doors, but because the EPP won the elections and she was our lead candidate. Teresa Ribera, Stéphane Séjourné and also Ursula von der Leyen represent the balanced Commission based on an election of 200 million voters last year.

Secondly, we know where we can build up the future. In around 90 % of all roll-call votes in the last 12 months, we voted together in the platform. That's the truth and that is what we stick to.

The third point I want to make: we as the oldest group in this House, we respect its political culture. And the European Parliament is not Westminster. May I remind you: in the last term there was a debate about the Nature Restoration Law, about the combustion engine. And yes, the left policies were voted in favour without a platform agreement here in this House.

And yes, this happens also today – the famous Venezuela resolution. We found a compromise on nearly everything. But finally, the question whether we call Maduro a dictator was a splitting point. We were voting in favour of calling him a dictator. Socialists didn't do so.

And, dear friends, also for the green claims directive's content: a pre-approval of all ads from big companies is for us a bureaucratic monster. Others can vote for it. The EPP will not vote for it. And I tell you, that is not misusing democracy, that is exactly democracy. It shows different identities in our House.

And again, to be precise, 90 % in the platform, and I tell you, in 3 % of all roll-call votes in the last 12 months, yes, there was a majority between EPP, ECR and PfE, but in the rest of the 7 % of the roll-call votes here in this House, there was a majority between the left majority and PfE against the EPP. Those are the facts, and that's why I consider really to stop the debate we had in the last weeks about our credibility and our will to work together.

Finally, dear friends, the EPP has a clear red line: pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine, pro-rule of law. Others follow now our definition. Tusk against Kaczyński, Péter Magyar against Orbán. In Czechia, Fiala, befriended with the EPP, against Babiš. We are often the only chance to stop the authoritarian wave in Europe, and that is why we do not need any lesson in fighting against right-wing populism in Europe as the EPP.

But – and that's my final point – as a precondition for winning against the authoritarians, we have to listen to people. Emmanuel Macron was critical towards the 2040 target, and the incoming Danish socialist Presidency asks for further tougher measures against illegal migration. And that's why I tell you: the EPP will take the people's concerns in the centre of politics in the next four years.

I thank Commissioners Teresa Ribera, Stéphane Séjourné and Ursula von der Leyen for their great work. They can count on the continued support of the European People's Party.

  Iratxe García Pérez, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señora Von der Leyen, siento decirle que, cada vez que el señor Weber hace declaraciones sobre esta moción de censura, la pone a usted en más problemas, pero, en cualquier caso, como presidenta del Grupo socialdemócrata quiero dejar claro, desde el primer momento, que esta moción liderada por la extrema derecha no contará con el voto a favor de mi Grupo, no porque defendamos todo el rumbo de la Comisión, sino porque no vamos a regalar ni un solo voto a quienes como Orbán, Le Pen o Abascal quieren destruir la Unión Europea.

Esta moción no es un acto de fiscalización, es un acto reaccionario al corazón del proyecto europeo. Y, frente a ese asalto, no caben dudas, estaremos donde siempre hemos estado: defendiendo Europa, sus valores, su dignidad, la libertad, la justicia.

Señor Weber, cuando menos me resulta paradójico que haya estado usted un año dedicando sus esfuerzos a convencernos a los grupos europeos de que el Grupo ECR es un grupo proeuropeo y hoy un diputado del Grupo ECR haya tomado la palabra para defender la moción de censura contra la Comisión Europea.

¿Cómo se puede construir Europa con quienes niegan el cambio climático, con quienes atacan la Agenda 2030, con quienes desprecian la ciencia, con quienes relegan a las mujeres al silencio o hacen apología del nazismo, con quienes desmantelan los servicios públicos o se alían con Putin y Netanyahu para destruir el Derecho internacional y aniquilar Ucrania y Gaza?

La extrema derecha no quiere una Europa mejor, quiere que no haya Europa. Y en la socialdemocracia, en cambio, hemos conseguido construir la Unión Europea, piedra a piedra, y, frente a su odio, su negacionismo y su autoritarismo, vamos a seguir defendiendo Europa: la Europa que protege, que cuida y que libera.

Señor Weber, permítame que sea muy clara: esta moción es también el resultado directo del fracaso de su estrategia en el Parlamento Europeo. Nos piden responsabilidad a los grupos proeuropeos, mientras negocian las políticas con la extrema derecha. Lo siento, así no es posible. Tenemos que seguir trabajando.

¿No fue usted quien votó con la extrema derecha para bloquear el Órgano de ética? ¿No fue usted quien se unió a los radicales para desmantelar el Pacto Verde Europeo, para lanzar una caza de brujas contra las ONG medioambientales, para eliminar el derecho a la Garantía Infantil? ¿No es su Grupo quien utiliza la Comisión de Peticiones para atacar a los Gobiernos que no son de su Grupo político, como España o Eslovenia? Realmente debe reflexionar sobre esta cuestión.

Y usted, señora Von der Leyen, no mire hacia otro lado. ¿Por qué anunció su intención de retirar la Directiva sobre Afirmaciones Ecológicas un día después de que el Partido Popular Europeo y los grupos de extrema derecha se lo exigieran por carta? ¿A quién le debe su apoyo? ¿Dónde quedó el compromiso que le dio la mayoría proeuropea?

Señorías del Partido Popular, hoy les exijo una respuesta clara: ¿con quiénes quieren gobernar? ¿Con quienes quieren destruir Europa o con quienes luchamos cada día para construirla? Respeten el acuerdo de legislatura. Respeten la palabra dada. Y, si vuelven a traicionarla, tengan claro que la socialdemocracia liderará una resistencia. No cederemos ni un centímetro. Porque frente al odio, frente a la mentira y frente a la destrucción, nuestra respuesta será más Europa, no menos. Más democracia, no menos. Más justicia, no menos.

  Fabrice Leggeri, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Présidente von der Leyen, mes chers collègues, l’Europe mérite mieux que le silence, mieux que l’opacité, mieux que l’autoritarisme bureaucratique. Depuis six ans maintenant, vous dirigez cette Commission avec une verticalité jupitérienne, coupée des réalités, coupée des peuples, coupée même trop souvent des valeurs qui ont fondé notre continent.

Le «Pfizergate» n’est pas une erreur administrative: c’est un abus de pouvoir. Trente-cinq milliards d’euros d’argent public négociés par SMS, sans appel d’offres, sans mandat, sans transparence. La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne l’a confirmé: vous avez agi seule, en dehors de tout cadre démocratique. Cette faute n’est pas seulement la vôtre. Elle symbolise une dérive plus grave encore, celle d’une Europe gouvernée dans l’ombre des peuples.

Sous votre autorité, la Commission est devenue le bras armé d’intérêts privés, d’ONG militantes, d’idéologies décroissantes, parfois même étrangères aux fondements de notre civilisation. Ce que vous appelez «transition», des milliers d’Européens le vivent comme une punition; ce que vous appelez «pacte vert», nos agriculteurs, nos artisans, nos industriels le subissent comme un étranglement; et ce que vous appelez «valeurs européennes» ressemble trop souvent à une censure des peuples qui osent penser autrement. Alors est-ce cela, l’Europe que vous défendez, Madame? Une Europe où les décisions se prennent sans débat, une Europe qui signerait, dans le dos des citoyens, des accords commerciaux comme celui du Mercosur, qui exposera davantage encore nos filières à une concurrence déloyale, une Europe qui affaiblit les nations tout en se rêvant en empire?

Alors, non, Madame von der Leyen, cette Europe n’est pas la nôtre. La nôtre, c’est celle des libertés, celle du respect des identités, des souverainetés, des choix démocratiques, celle qui protège, qui construit, qui écoute; pas celle qui impose. Aujourd’hui, en conscience, nous voterons cette motion de censure. Ce vote n’est pas simplement un geste d’opposition, c’est un acte de responsabilité, car il ne s’agit plus seulement de vous désavouer, il s’agit de dire qu’un autre chemin est possible. Un chemin où l’Europe redevient un projet et une promesse, non un système, une superposition de normes et de menaces. Les peuples d’Europe n’ont pas besoin d’une Commission toute puissante, ils ont besoin d’une Europe à leur image, et, si ce mandat doit s’achever sur un signal fort, alors qu’il soit celui-ci: le retour du politique, le retour du peuple, le retour du réel.

  Nicola Procaccini, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, evidentemente oggi non potrò parlare a nome di tutto il gruppo, ma potrò farlo a nome dei due terzi dei colleghi dell'ECR che non hanno sottoscritto la mozione. Non perché non condividessero alcuni dei motivi di censura presenti nel testo, ma perché, come me, ritengono questa mozione un errore, un regalo ai nostri avversari politici, che arriva proprio nel momento di loro maggiore frustrazione, quando, grazie a delle maggioranze di centrodestra che non si erano mai viste prima, stiamo riuscendo a riportare un po' di buon senso qui dentro.

Ci sarà libertà di voto nell'ECR, ma questa mozione è destinata a fallire, si sa, senza neppure avvicinarsi alla soglia dei voti necessaria per essere approvata. Forse la voterà il gruppo della Sinistra, forse si aggiungeranno un po' di comunisti francesi o tedeschi, o i "nientisti" del Movimento 5 Stelle. Fine. Purtroppo, sarà utile ai Socialisti e ai Verdi, che ne approfitteranno per invocare il ritorno a quella "maggioranza Ursula" schiava della loro agenda, che ha già causato gravi danni alle famiglie e alle imprese economiche europee.

Io voterò contro questa mozione, come conservatore europeo e come italiano, perché non voglio tornare indietro, all'immigrazione selvaggia e all'ambientalismo come surrogato del comunismo, perché diversi commissari vengono oggi da governi europei sostenuti e partecipati dai partiti conservatori con onore e dedizione, perché voglio difendere il lavoro del precedente presidente dell'ECR, attuale vicepresidente della Commissione europea, l'italiano Raffaele Fitto.

Lasciatemi dire una cosa, io rispetto le scelte di tutti, ma c'è una domanda che mi esce dal cuore: come mai diversi firmatari di oggi non presentarono mai una mozione di censura contro la scorsa Commissione von der Leyen, quella che ha sostenuto le ONG immigrazioniste, che ha prodotto il Green Deal e il cosiddetto Pfizergate, che aveva come vicepresidente il socialista Timmermans al posto del conservatore Fitto?

Ovviamente conosco la risposta e non provo nessun risentimento. Dopo che qualcuno avrà ottenuto il suo quarto d'ora di celebrità dovremo ricominciare a batterci insieme, fianco a fianco, per cercare la verità sugli scandali politici che hanno influenzato il Parlamento europeo, per difendere la libertà di parola, per proteggere i nostri popoli e per molte altre buone ragioni.

Purtroppo a qualcuno piace perdere, sia in patria che qui. A me no. Non vogliamo smettere di vincere, costruendo maggioranze sui contenuti e non sui pregiudizi.

Questo è il nostro tempo e non lo sprecheremo.

  Valérie Hayer, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Présidente von der Leyen, nous venons d’écouter Nicola Procaccini. On voit bien que M. Procaccini est embarrassé, parce que la moitié de son groupe veut vous faire tomber. Puis il y a les Patriotes. Alors là, pas d’ambiguïté, car eux, de leur côté, veulent faire tomber l’Europe. Mais dans quel monde vivent-ils? Un monde sans les horreurs qui ont cours en Ukraine et au Moyen-Orient? Un monde sans Trump ni Poutine? Un monde où l’Europe n’aurait pas déjà prouvé son utilité? Bien sûr que l’on a besoin d’Europe, et l’on n’a jamais autant eu besoin d’Europe!

Aujourd’hui, Madame la Présidente, vous assistez à l’impasse qui est la vôtre et celle de votre famille politique, vous qui avez laissé le PPE réaliser des alliances de circonstance avec l’extrême droite. Alors, je vous le demande clairement: qui sont vos alliés, dans ce Parlement? Vos vrais alliés? Parce qu’il faut choisir: il y a un an, nous vous avons élue à la tête de la Commission européenne. Aujourd’hui, aucun de nos députés n’a signé cette motion de censure. Aucun! J’espère que cela a bien été relevé.

En même temps, je dois dire que ce débat arrive à un moment opportun, parce que le Parlement a des choses à vous dire, notamment sur la transparence et la gouvernance. Désolée de le dire comme ça, mais, quand même, c’est l’hôpital qui se fout de la charité! Avant de donner des leçons, il serait de bon ton que l’extrême droite, mais surtout le PPE, votre propre famille politique, Madame la Présidente, arrête de bloquer la mise en place de l’organe éthique. Au delà de la transparence, ce sont les équilibres institutionnels qui sont maintenant mis à mal par cette coopération avec les ennemis de l’Europe. Leur donner réponse sur les allégations écologiques, Madame la Présidente, sans respecter nos règles, a été une erreur majeure, un symptôme de tout ce qui dysfonctionne depuis un an et qui doit cesser.

Il y a une chose que je veux vous dire également, Madame la Présidente: que fait l’Europe? On en est où, du rapport Draghi? On en est où, de l’union des marchés de capitaux? On en est où, de la protection des mineurs sur les réseaux sociaux? On en est où, des sanctions vis-à-vis des plateformes qui relaient fausses informations et ingérence? Le constat, aujourd’hui, Madame la Présidente, est clair: la Commission est trop centralisée et sclérosée, et le Parlement européen est totalement instable.

Avec Renew Europe, nous avons défendu la majorité qui vous a fait élire, Madame la Présidente, sur un programme pro-européen, ce même programme qui, aujourd’hui, patine à cause d’une rupture dans la méthode. Il patine parce que l’idéologie l’emporte sur les accords politiques. Il patine parce que les équilibres du Parlement sont mal calculés et anticipés par la Commission.

Alors, Madame la Présidente, je me dois désormais de vous le dire: rien n’est acquis. Ramenez de l’ordre dans votre famille politique! Nous attendons que vous repreniez la main pour qu’enfin le programme politique que nous portons, sur le fond et avec vous, voie bien le jour.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, this motion should be about transparency, fighting corruption, etc. Corruption by the far right – most corruption cases are within your ranks and I find it quite condemning that Mr Leggeri is talking about all kinds of scandals without mentioning all the scandals under your leadership in Frontex.

Or on transparency: you've been blocking any initiative that we took to get transparency in this House and when there was a real issue of transparency, we as Greens are taking the European Commission to court on the contracts of the vaccines. Where were you when we were fighting in court? This just shows you one thing: this is one big political show of the far right to undermine democracy, to undermine our Europe, to undermine European democracy. That's what they're doing.

And that does bring me to the EPP, Mr Weber. You didn't want lectures, but sorry, when you are talking about how there are new majorities, which majority are you talking about? There is no right‑wing majority without the far right, so if you talk about new majorities, you are talking about a majority with them.

And I can just quote the President of the Commission talking about extremists eroding democracy, that they are only doing conspiracy theories – you are feeding that beast and at a certain moment the beast will eat you.

This means it's time for a cordon sanitaire and a cordon sanitaire means not supporting their amendments, which the EPP is still doing. It also means not pushing their agenda on fighting NGOs, on getting migration files with the help of the far right, to kill the Green Deal for us like the Greens claim – that's what you're doing together with the far right.

That, of course, also brings me to the ECR. Lovely speech. The first signatory is from your group. Your co-president is one of the co-signers of this. Where does ECR stand? Mr Weber, you said we are having one criteria that's pro‑Ukraine, pro-democracy, pro‑Europe. I think after today it's clear that ECR doesn't fit that criteria.

So no, there is no left‑wing majority in this House, but there is also no right‑wing majority in this House. There is a majority of the centre parties and the pro-European democratic parties. Let's work on that. We have work to do together. It's now time to deliver on a green economy, it's time to deliver on social justice, it's time to deliver on peace and we cannot do that with the far right.

  Martin Schirdewan, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Die wieder einmal durch einen Korruptionsskandal auffällig gewordene Rechte zeigt mit dem Finger auf die Kommission und schreit „Haltet den korrupten Dieb!“. Das ist der Zustand europäischer Institutionen im Jahr 2025. Und Sie, Frau von der Leyen, haben dieses unwürdige Schauspiel mit Ihrer maximalen Intransparenz erst möglich gemacht. Europa braucht den Mut für einen Politikwechsel, der soziale Gerechtigkeit herstellen, den Frieden erringen und Klima und Umwelt schützen will. Sie haben diesen Mut nicht, meine Damen und Herren von der Kommission, und deshalb braucht Europa eine neue politische Idee und, ja, auch eine neue politische Führung.

Im Trumpschen Handelskrieg bleiben Sie auf Kosten unserer Industrie und Arbeitsplätze passiv. Machen Sie doch einfach mal eine Ansage, etwa für die Einführung einer europäischen Digitalsteuer. Aber nein, Sie haben ja Angst, sich mit den europäischen und US‑amerikanischen und chinesischen Big‑Tech‑Unternehmen anzulegen. Der Green Deal, von Ihnen als Europas Man‑on‑the‑Moon‑Moment bezeichnet, wird Stück für Stück von Ihrer eigenen Parteienfamilie in Zusammenarbeit mit der extremen Rechten rückabgewickelt. Statt weiter von Klimaschutz zu reden, sollten Sie Ihre Umweltprogramme zukünftig „Willkommen in der Klimakatastrophe“ nennen. Ihre Migrationspolitik verletzt Menschenrechte. Sie sind nicht in der Lage, Rechtsstaatlichkeit durchzusetzen, und lassen sich von Leuten wie Orbán und Meloni auf der Nase herumtanzen. Europäische Außenpolitik schweigt zu den Völkerrechtsbrüchen und Kriegsverbrechen im Nahen Osten und Gaza und spielt für den Ukrainekrieg keine Rolle, weil Ihre einzige Idee von Diplomatie darin besteht, die Profite der Rüstungsunternehmen mit Hunderten von Milliarden öffentlicher Gelder in die Höhe zu treiben und damit den Großteil der Gesellschaft in eine neue Kürzungspolitik zu zwingen.

Das ist Ihre verheerende politische Bilanz! Frau von der Leyen, Ihre Politik führt dazu, dass diese korrupte Rechte hier alle Tage wieder ihr Affentheater aufführt und die Demokratie lächerlich macht. Deshalb werden wir alles dafür tun, dass diesen Leuten die politische Grundlage entzogen wird. Deshalb werden Sie, Frau von der Leyen, wird Ihre Kommission weiterhin in uns für Ihre falsche Politik ihre härtesten politischen Gegner finden.

  René Aust, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Wo auch immer Frau Ursula von der Leyen Verantwortung übertragen bekommt, richtet sie Schaden an. Als Familienministerin in Deutschland wollte sie bereits vor 20 Jahren die ersten Netzsperren einführen – das brachte ihr den Spitznamen Zensursula ein. Und schon damals schossen die Kosten für dubiose Beraterverträge in die Höhe. Als Arbeitsministerin das gleiche Bild: Millionen für externe Berater, Millionen für Selbstinszenierung, aber kein Nutzen für Bürger. Als Verteidigungsministerin: wieder Beraterfilz. Schon damals verschwundene Handydaten – dafür gab es dann Panzer, die geeignet waren auch für Schwangere.

Heute beklagt unser Land und unser Kontinent zu Recht, dass Deutschland seinen Beitrag zur Verteidigung unseres Kontinents nicht leisten könnte – Frau von der Leyen trägt dafür eine erhebliche Verantwortung. Und seit sechs Jahren führt sie ihr zerstörerisches Wirken auf der EU-Ebene fort. Der Green Deal führte zu Deindustrialisierungstendenzen in weiten Teilen von Europa: Menschen verloren ihren Arbeitsplatz, ihr Einkommen, ihre Existenz. Sechs Jahre lang blieben die EU-Außengrenzen offen: Millionen von Sozialmigranten konnten unkontrolliert einreisen – noch immer. Und über alledem liegt der Schatten der Pfizer-Affäre, die rechtswidrige Löschung und Weigerung der Herausgabe von SMS, der Verdacht von Verschwendung und Misswirtschaft beim COVID-Wiederaufbaufonds und NGO-Filz.

Aber der Wind hat sich gedreht im Vergleich zum letzten Mal bei der Legislaturperiode: Die Mehrheiten sind anders. Die Völker blicken auch anders auf Brüssel. Deswegen machen wir am Donnerstag den Weg frei für eine neue Kommission, die unsere Grenzen schützt, die unsere Meinungsfreiheit schützt und die unseren Wohlstand schützt. Darum schicken wir Sie am Donnerstag in den unverdienten politischen Ruhestand.

  President. – The President of the Commission said all she had to say at the beginning of the debate. That is something that we can now close with.

To wind up the debate, I have received one motion for a resolution.

The debate is closed.

The vote will be held on Thursday.

Written Statements (Rule 178)

  Vivien Costanzo (S&D), schriftlich. – Ich kritisiere die politische Öffnung der Kommissionspräsidentin und ihrer Parteifamilie gegenüber rechten und rechtsextremen Kräften. Entscheidungen, wie die Ernennung von Raffaele Fitto als Vizepräsidenten der Kommission oder das Zurückdrehen wichtiger Fortschritte der vergangenen Legislatur – etwa beim EU-Lieferkettengesetz oder der Green Claims-Richtlinie für gemeinsame Standards bei Klima- und Umweltbehauptungen –, untergraben das Vertrauen in eine konsequent europäische Politik.

Trotzdem war dieser Misstrauensantrag nicht der richtige Weg. Er wurde nicht von überzeugten Demokratinnen und Demokraten, sondern von erklärten Gegnerinnen und Gegnern der Europäischen Union eingebracht. Er ist in Teilen auf rechten Verschwörungstheorien aufgebaut.

Als Sozialdemokratin setze ich mich für ein starkes und handlungsfähiges Europa ein. Das erfordert verlässliche Mehrheiten und klare politische Verantwortung – nicht das Spiel mit destruktiven Kräften. Diese Abstimmung und die vorausgegangenen Verhandlungen unserer S&D-Fraktion waren ein deutliches Signal – auch an die Kommissionspräsidentin. Ihren Ankündigungen muss nun eine konsequente europäische Politik folgen.

  Tomasz Froelich (ESN), schriftlich. – Ursula von der Leyen gehört abgewählt! Sie steht für all das, was Europa in den Niedergang führt: Deindustrialisierung durch Green Deal, unkontrollierte Masseneinwanderung durch offene Grenze, Eskalation in der Ukraine durch Diplomatieverzicht, woke Umerziehung im pseudokonservativen Gewand, sowie grassierende Korruption und fehlende Transparenz. Das ist für sie nichts Neues: Schon als Ministerin in Deutschland fiel sie durch dubiosen Beraterfilz auf, statt durch realpolitische Erfolge. Das scheint in Brüssel wohl Voraussetzung für lukrative Posten zu sein. Für ihr multiples Versagen als Ministerin in Deutschland wurde sie mit dem Posten der EU-Kommissionspräsidentin belohnt. Was sagt das über die Europäische Union aus? Nichts Gutes! Von der Leyen wirft denen, die den Misstrauensantrag gegen sie eingebracht haben, vor, Verschwörungstheorien aus dem Kreml zu reproduzieren. Eine ganz billige Nummer, die immer von den Leuten kommt, die sonst keine Argumente mehr haben. Doch sie könnte all die angeblichen Verschwörungstheorien problemlos widerlegen, indem sie endlich Transparenz herstellen würde: Veröffentlichung der Pfizer-SMS – sofort! Nichts anderes verlangen wir. Aber sie wird das nicht tun. Und warum? Weil sie es nicht kann! Ursula von der Leyen – das ist der Inbegriff der Negativauslese in der Politik. Und in uns hat sie ihre erbittertsten Gegner. Wir werden vor dieser Frau nicht weichen!

  Emmanouil Kefalogiannis (PPE), in writing. – I would like to clarify that my intention is to vote against the motion of censure on the European Commission, B10-0319/2025. Due to a technical issue with the voting system, this intention is unfortunately not reflected in the official voting record. I remain firmly opposed to the motion, and my political position on the matter is unequivocal.

  Rihards Kols (ECR), in writing. – The motion of censure against European Commission President von der Leyen, tabled by a colleague from within the ECR Group, was politically uncoordinated and destined to fail. It did not represent the broader position of many ECR national delegations, including Latvia’s.

While I abstained in the vote for von der Leyen’s appointment last year, I supported the College of Commissioners. It brought Baltic leadership into key portfolios – defence, external affairs, and the economy – that directly align with our region’s strategic interests.

Had the motion succeeded, the entire Commission would have collapsed. That would have meant paralysis at a time when Europe cannot afford delay: defence industry financing, US trade talks, and aid to Ukraine and talks regarding its reconstruction are all on the table. Changes are needed – but through deliberate pressure, not self-inflicted instability.

We have already seen steps to revise elements of the Green Deal and to reinforce Europe’s external borders. These must be accelerated. But that can only be done with meaningful and sustained work.

At a time of geopolitical risk, we need institutional stability to deliver results. This motion served no such purpose.

For that reason, I did not take part in the vote.

(The sitting was briefly suspended)