Procédures
152 votesSécurité des produits et conformité réglementaire dans le commerce électronique et les importations en provenance de pays tiers
Augmenter les financements nationaux pour renforcer les contrôles douaniers et la surveillance des produits non-conformes vendus en ligne.
Sécurité de l'approvisionnement énergétique dans l'Union
Interdire les importations de gaz naturel russe dans l'UE d'ici 2027 et démanteler complètement les pipelines Nord Stream.
Résolution sur le pacte pour une industrie propre
Financer la décarbonation industrielle via des enchères et des accords d'achat d'électricité, tout en améliorant les infrastructures énergétiques transfrontalières.
Les réseaux d'électricité: l'épine dorsale du système énergétique de l'UE
Moderniser les réseaux électriques européens pour intégrer les énergies renouvelables, réduire les congestions et atteindre les objectifs climatiques de 2050.
Résolution sur la dissolution de partis politiques et la répression de l’opposition au Mali
Condamner la dissolution des partis politiques au Mali et exiger le respect des droits humains, la libération des prisonniers politiques et des élections transparentes.
Explications de vote
Explications de vote soumises après les sessions plénières.
Motion de censure visant la Commission
The censure motion against Commission President von der Leyen was politically uncoordinated, lacked strategic backing and was always set to fail. It did not reflect the broader view of many in the ECR Group, nor of the Latvian delegation. While I have been critical of the Commission's direction on several fronts, including its inconsistent handling of security and migration, supporting this motion would have meant derailing ongoing work that is directly tied to Latvia’s and the Baltic region’s interests. Key Commissioners responsible for defence, external affairs and reducing EU‑level bureaucracy are advancing files critical for our region. Dismissing the entire Commission mid‑mandate would have frozen progress for months and shifted focus from delivery to internal political games. That is not a risk we can afford, not with war on our border and major legislative files in motion – from Ukraine support to defence industry investment. Had the motion succeeded, there was also no guarantee that the Baltics would retain influence in the next College. The stakes are too high for gamble‑based politics. Change must come through pressure, not paralysis. This motion offered no credible alternative, only disruption. That is why I voted against it.
Résolution sur la nécessité d’un soutien continu de l’Union à l’Ukraine
My vote in support for the resolution was a part of the whole – of the European Parliament’s vote to reaffirm its stance and reveal the true colours of us all. Supporting Ukraine is not an act of charity. From Europeans opening their homes to the supply of arms, this is about our values. Ignoring this jeopardises our future, our democracy, and the values we hold dear. Russia’s war in the heart of Europe affects us all. We must triumph both on the ground in Ukraine and in the hearts and minds across our alliance. Russia’s ability to sustain a prolonged war, its disinformation campaigns, the cost-of-living crisis in Europe and upheavals across the globe threaten the support Ukraine desperately needs. Russia cannot prevail. The free world needs a strategy to end this. The key is in whether we will ‘support as long as it takes’ or ‘whatever it takes’ until Ukraine’s victory. From our different perspectives on how this should end, we need to harness our collective strength. Our commitment is to victory, not attrition; liberation, not a stalemate. This requires action, small and large, and maybe even a Casablanca conference of our own to decide how Russia shall be decisively defeated.
Aucune explication de vote disponible.