Procédures
191 votesRapport 2025 de la Commission concernant la Macédoine du Nord
Conditionner l'adhésion de la Macédoine du Nord à l'Union européenne à l'adoption de réformes constitutionnelles, judiciaires et de lutte contre la corruption.
Rapport 2025 de la Commission concernant l’Albanie
Conditionner l'aide financière à l'Albanie à des réformes contre la corruption, le crime organisé et les discriminations pour permettre son adhésion à l'Union.
Rapport 2025 de la Commission concernant le Monténégro
Accélérer l'adhésion du Monténégro à l'Union européenne en exigeant des réformes judiciaires, la lutte contre la corruption et l'alignement de sa politique des visas.
Rôle du commerce dans le renforcement de la sécurité économique de l'Union
Diversifier les partenaires commerciaux et augmenter les taxes anti-dumping pour réduire la dépendance de l'Union européenne envers la Chine sur les matières premières critiques.
Résolution sur la nécessité de réduire le nombre de décès liés au travail
Imposer des normes de sécurité renforcées et des contrôles accrus pour éliminer les accidents de travail mortels, notamment liés au climat et au numérique.
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.