Procédures
152 votesRésolution sur le renforcement de la résilience de la Moldavie face à l’ingérence russe dans la perspective des prochaines élections présidentielles et du référendum constitutionnel sur l’intégration européenne
Renforcer l'assistance européenne à la Moldavie pour contrer l'ingérence russe, protéger les élections et soutenir l'intégration européenne.
Résolution sur la situation au Venezuela
Imposer des sanctions ciblées contre Nicolás Maduro et son cercle restreint pour fraude électorale et violations des droits humains au Venezuela.
Résolution sur la pérennité du soutien financier et militaire apporté à l’Ukraine par les États membres de l’Union
Augmenter l'aide financière et militaire à l'Ukraine, lever les restrictions sur l'utilisation d'armes occidentales et renforcer les sanctions contre la Russie et ses soutiens.
Résolution sur le cas de José Daniel Ferrer García à Cuba
Exiger la libération immédiate de José Daniel Ferrer García et de tous les prisonniers politiques arbitrairement détenus à Cuba.
Résolution sur la gravité de la situation des prisonniers politiques en Biélorussie
Libérer immédiatement et inconditionnellement tous les prisonniers politiques et personnes détenues arbitrairement en Biélorussie.
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.