Procédures
279 votesRapport 2025 de la Commission concernant la Moldavie
Ouvrir sans délai tous les chapitres d'adhésion de la Moldavie à l'Union européenne pour récompenser ses réformes judiciaires et sa lutte contre l'ingérence russe.
Rapport 2025 de la Commission concernant l'Ukraine
Accélérer l'aide financière et militaire à l'Ukraine, renforcer les sanctions contre la Russie et intégrer l'industrie de défense ukrainienne au marché européen.
Actifs numériques – Défis pour la compétitivité et l’intégrité du système financier de l’Union européenne
Imposer l'application stricte du règlement MiCA pour lutter contre le blanchiment d'argent et encourager la tokenisation des instruments financiers dans l'Union européenne.
Mise en œuvre et réalisation des objectifs de développement durable dans la perspective du forum politique de haut niveau de 2026
Financer l'accès à l'eau, accélérer la transition vers les énergies renouvelables et restructurer la dette des pays pauvres pour atteindre les objectifs de développement.
Une nouvelle stratégie pour l'éducation aux médias et l'apprentissage numérique
Intégrer l'éducation aux médias dans les programmes scolaires européens et réguler les plateformes pour protéger la santé mentale des mineurs face aux risques numériques.
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.