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 votesAccess to finance for SMEs and scale-ups
Simplify regulations to reduce burdens on SMEs and improve their access to finance, especially for scale-ups.
EU’s diplomatic strategy and geopolitical cooperation in the Arctic
Strengthen Arctic underwater infrastructure protection against geopolitical disruptions and counter Sino-Russian cooperation undermining international law.
Impact of artificial intelligence on the financial sector
Require human oversight of fully autonomous AI systems used in the financial sector.
Ensuring faster registration and uptake of biological control agents
Accelerate the approval of biological control agents for pest management by streamlining regulations and increasing funding for research and authorisation.
Resolution on the situation in Belarus, five years after the fraudulent presidential elections
Fund Belarusian civil society, independent media, and victims of repression, while sanctioning those responsible for human rights violations and forced labour.
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.