Procédures
27 votesRésolution sur le renouvellement du partenariat UE-Afrique: construire des priorités communes dans la perspective du sommet en Angola
Accélérer la ratification de l'accord de Samoa par les États membres de l'UE et les partenaires africains.
Conséquences institutionnelles des négociations d’élargissement de l’Union
Réformer la gouvernance de l'UE, notamment le vote au Conseil et le budget, pour préparer l'élargissement et éviter la paralysie décisionnelle.
Décharge 2023: budget général de l'Union européenne - Conseil européen et Conseil
Conditionner l'approbation du budget du Conseil à sa coopération avec le Parlement sur la transparence et le contrôle budgétaire.
Stratégie politique de l'Union en Amérique latine
Renforcer le dialogue UE-Amérique latine pour défendre la démocratie, contrer l'influence autoritaire et diversifier l'approvisionnement en matières premières.
Faciliter le financement des investissements et des réformes pour stimuler la compétitivité européenne et créer une union des marchés des capitaux (rapport Draghi)
Mobiliser des investissements publics et privés pour combler le déficit de productivité et atteindre les objectifs environnementaux et sociaux de l'UE.
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.