Political Group Memberships
Voting Statistics
Group Alignment
How often this MEP votes with their political group majority.
Rebel Subjects
Topics where this MEP most often breaks with their political group.
Procedures
143 votesResolution on the political situation in Myanmar including the humanitarian crisis of the Rohingya
Demand an immediate ceasefire and end to violence against civilians, ethnic minorities, and political opponents in Myanmar.
Resolution on the escalation of the war and the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan
Demand that all parties in Sudan end violence and human rights abuses, and allow humanitarian access.
Application of the Treaty provisions related to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the role of national parliaments in the EU legislative process
Demand stricter justification from the Commission for EU legislative action, ensuring respect for Member State competences and avoiding disguised extensions of power.
EU strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities post-2024
Require the Commission to present an updated disability rights strategy for 2025-2030 with concrete measures addressing remaining gaps.
Implementation of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
Demand full implementation of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, including customs and SPS mechanisms, and enhanced security cooperation.
Written Explanations
Written explanations of vote submitted after plenary sessions.
Motion of censure on the 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.
Resolution on the need for the EU’s continuous support for 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.
No written explanations available.