On Monday afternoon, when the European Parliament met for the second time after the summer break in Strasbourg, legislators got down to business right away.
Jordan Bardella, the French chairman of the far-right group Patriots for Europe, accused European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen of a lack of transparency, a failed migration policy and a loss of competitiveness because of her climate policy.
He also called the customs deal with the US a disaster. “You have effectively signed Europe’s surrender,” he said.
The next to speak was the deputy chair of the left-wing group, French politician Manon Aubry. Her accusations were also serious: failure in her dealings with Israel and the war in Gaza, in achieving the Green Deal, focusing on arms purchases instead of social security. “You must go,” she told von der Leyen.
However, von der Leyen kept calm. “The truth is that our opponents are not only ready to exploit any divisions, they actively fuel these divisions,” she countered confidently, calling for unity.
Two no-confidence votes in three months
Yet it is unprecedented for a European Commission president to face two votes of no-confidence within just three months. It is seen as unlikely that she will be ousted in Thursday’s vote — but it reveals just how fragmented the parliament has become.
It further displays how fragile trust between the Commission and parties from the political center is by now.
Unlike the last vote of no-confidence in July, this time, the push came from the radical left as well as the political right wing. Although their worldviews clash, their goals seem to be similar: to undermine von der Leyen, and strengthen their own grip on power in the parliament.
For Almut Möller, director of European and Global Affairs at the European Policy Centre (EPC), this is not unexpected. “It is no surprise given the increasing political fragmentation in the European Parliament,” she said.
Olivier Costa, director of research at the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique, or CNRS, who is an expert on EU institutions, highlighted the rise of extremist forces on the left and right as the root cause.
What is the criticism of von der Leyen’s leadership?
Costa also points to the dwindling ability to cooperate between Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, which was formerly the core alliance in the European Parliament. He added there was second reason: Ursula von der Leyen’s leadership style, which many perceive as too centralized and hierarchical.
“She really sees herself as a prime minister,” Costa said, adding that the principles of cooperation and consensus are taking a back seat, with decisions being made by those at the top. This has caused discontent in the parliament and even within the Commission.
Meanwhile, Europe’s political landscape has become more complicated. Since 2019, the former “grand coalition” between the right-wing conservative European People’s Party (EPP) and the social democrats (S&D) is no longer sufficient to secure stable majorities.
“We have seen that already in some votes, especially on environment and migration or international questions, that there is no hesitation anymore for the EPP to vote with them [far-right parties],” he said.
Personal clashes between Manfred Weber (EPP) and Iratxe García (S&D) at the top of the parliamentary groups have made compromises harder to reach. The result is a power vacuum in the center that is being exploited by the political fringes.
Criticism mounts from all sides
Still, the parties in the center are still trying to stick together, but patience with the Commission President’s course is wearing thin. “We have to acknowledge that the political platform upon which the Commission President and her Commission stand holds for now, but is not that solid in the center either,” Möller told DW.
There is criticism from all sides: parts of the Liberal Party complain about the slow pace of bureaucracy cutbacks, the EPP is annoyed about unilateral foreign policy decisions, and the Social Democrats and Greens are increasingly skeptical about a shift toward growth and competitiveness and away from social projects and the Green Deal.
However, Möller warns against jumping to conclusions. “These [accusations] will not fundamentally be a threat to the power of the Commission President,” she explained, adding that von der Leyen will “have to focus on keeping the center engaged and happy.”
In her view, ironically, the upcoming no-confidence votes are an opportunity to do just that.
Von der Leyen may be able to discipline her coalition by turning the vote into a question of loyalty.
Dangerous or invigorating?
So, are the no-confident votes a sign of dangerous destabilization or democratic vitality? “Both,” Costa said, explaining that “controversy is the proof that democracy is vivid, within EU institutions, but it’s always the same thing: It’s vivid until the point where it becomes too much for the system and the system is destabilized.”
On Thursday, the European Parliament will decide on von der Leyen’s future. However, Costa does not see any grounds for an imminent resignation, but rather views the situation as the new normal, which consists of nonstop stress tests.
“Von der Leyen will neither resign nor be dismissed; for many, she is still the best option. After all, who would be the alternative?” he said. And yet, he views the size of the “no” camp as politically significant. “A weak score would mirror the declining relationship between the European Commission and the European Parliament,” he said.
In turn, many observers believe that the decisive factor is not whether von der Leyen will survive the no-confidence vote, but how. After all, the tighter the opposition, the less support there is, and the greater the pressure in the upcoming budget, trade, and climate legislation. For the Commission President, the delicate balancing act looks set to continue.
This article was originally written in German.
