For Forbesshe is the most powerful woman in the world. Ursula von der Leyen, however, sees her throne wavering. In July, a warning sounded in Strasbourg: 175 MEPs voted for a motion of censure against the“Empress of Europe”which now no longer escapes headwinds. Three months later, the President of the European Commission faces two new offensives, carried by the Patriots for Europe (PfE) and the Left, who, on October 9, each tabled a motion of censure. Such a revolt had not shaken the European Parliament for more than twenty-five years. His most precious alliances also waver. After months of mutual seduction, Giorgia Meloni’s party finally refused to support her re-election in July 2024, although she was reappointed for a five-year term.
Failing adoption, these two motions have opened a new breach in von der Leyen’s mode of governance that many consider too vertical. On the side of the radical left, Manon Aubry castigates her “inaction” facing the “genocide” in Gaza. On the right, the Patriots for Europe (PfE) denounce a “migratory headlong rush” and one “commercial rendering” in the agreement concluded with Donald Trump. The group led by Jordan Bardella also attacks the nicknamed “Atlanticist” for having signed the free trade agreement with Mercosur, the legal texts of which are currently being adopted. But the German holds on. It owes its political survival to the support of the three major centrist parties: the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and the liberals of Renew Europe. But the unity of his camp is now weakened: François-Xavier Bellamy, vice-president of the Republicans and elected from the EPP group, has chosen to vote for censure against the one who nevertheless comes from the right.
Agenda thwarted
These successive motions, although unsuccessful, reflect the growing polarization of a European Parliament more fragmented than ever. “Our motion of censure aims to put the European Commission back under political controlsays Fabrice Leggeri, MEP of the National Rally. There is a presidentialist drift from the Commission, which believes it alone embodies the European Union without being accountable to anyone. » Same story at Reconquête. MEP Sarah Knafo confides to the Tangwall Campagin that she “voted all motions of censure” and hopes for a domino effect: “If pressure builds in every country, they will end up voting with us and it could really fall. If all the MPs who fought the Commission had held their line, Ursula von der Leyen would be packing up and Mercosur would be buried. » In the meantime, the President of the European Commission sees her agenda thwarted. She thought she could pass a law forcing applications to analyze each private message, thus transforming everyone’s phone into a spying tool. But the discussion has just been postponed under pressure from its opposition.
A defeat which only half satisfies Florian Philippot, president of the Patriotes. The former MEP judges that a possible overthrow of Ursula von der Leyen would only be an illusion. “The European treaties will remain the same, and nothing will change in substance: Mercosur, the migration pact, the green pact, and this European Union which dreams of becoming a state with its army and its own prerogatives. » For him, the only real motion of censure is Frexit. In the ranks of Renew, the presidential camp, the voices are mixed. “These motions of censure are above all a communication stunt by the extremes, in search of visibility”annoys MEP Fabienne Keller. Others, like Grégory Allione, are more nuanced: “We are not voting on this motion, but we are warning the president”he explains to the Tangwall Campagin, while criticizing the latter for too often bypassing the European Parliament. “It’s not in the middle of a storm that we change captains. But she still has to trust her crew. Von der Leyen does not play collective »concedes Renew MEP.
Thus, criticism rains down from all sides: Ursula von der Leyen governs alone, surrounded by a closed circle of advisors, almost all German. He is criticized for a Commission that has become too opaque, concentrating power and control of decisions. An institution undermined, according to its detractors, by the sprawling pressure of lobbies: nearly 50,000 lobbyists work for 12,500 organizations, to the point that some MEPs say they no longer have control over the making of laws, now subject to private interests. Several scandals have accentuated this distrust. In 2021, Qatargate splashes the European Parliament: Belgian services discover a network of corruption involving Moroccan and Qatari agents, accused of having paid money to several elected officials to influence certain decisions. A few months later, it was Pfizergate: Ursula von der Leyen would have negotiated directly by SMS with Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, a contract for 1.8 billion doses of vaccine for the modest sum of 36 billion euros, outside of classic European procedures, even though health does not fall within the competence of the EU. Since the revelations in the New York Times, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Court of Auditors have demanded the publication of these SMS messages. The president still opposes it, despite several complaints filed, including one for “destruction of public documents” And “corruption”.
It is clear that Europe today costs France more than it brings in.
Crippling rules
In France, certain political voices no longer hide their exasperation. Philippe de Villiers, in the lead, speaks openly of a “deep state”. “The Brussels Commission is not elected, it is cut off from the people, does what it wants and allows itself to be won over by corruption. She holds both executive and legislative power: she is the one who commands”he criticizes, reproaching Ursula von der Leyen for wanting to build the “United States of Europe” to the detriment of French sovereignty. He likes to point out that the European Union is above all an American creation, born in the Oval Office in 1943, when Franklin Roosevelt confided to Jean Monnet the need to build a “transatlantic community” to serve as a complementary market to the United States.
In the economic world, the tone is hardly more conciliatory. At Medef, we deplore a president “powerless in the face of customs duties and Chinese competition”. To the point “to encourage each country – without saying it publicly – to transgress European rules that are paralyzing for competitiveness”. It is clear that Europe today costs France more than it brings in.
For Renew, the problem does not lie only in Brussels. Grégory Allione pleads for national awareness: “The first step would be to teach our regions to seek European funds to revitalize their territories and support their local projects. Perhaps we should blame ourselves rather than Europe? » According to him, the French regions are struggling to ” to use ” Europe effectively. “As long as power remains concentrated in Paris, the regions will not be able to fully play their role. The day we resolve this problem of Jacobinism, we will become more efficient”analyzes the MEP. But in the absence of change, the imbalance continues to set in: with a net balance estimated at -9.4 billion euros, France remains the second net contributor to the European Union budget. Far behind Germany.
