Today, the European Parliament will be voting to determine if Ursula von der Leyen will continue to lead the European Commission for another four years, or what’s left. Undoubtedly, it is a moment that calls for reflection. As much as I criticised the President of the European Commission, the timing is not in anyone’s favour. In fact, the vote will be considering not only the suitability of her leadership, but the direction in which Europe is heading.
As I recall, the required threshold to remove her isn’t a simple majority of 50 plus 1, but rather a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, and it must also represent a majority of all MEPs overall, not just those present. Hence, the exercise is just futile. Maybe that’s why the vote is being taken on Thursday at midday, when several MEPs won’t even be in office in time to catch their flights and trains. However, even if the vote fails, the political signal is not one of strength but of weakness, as it creates ambiguity for her leadership. I am not saying that her position has become untenable now. It’s long been. Certainly, her position and the way EU politics are done require deep rethinking. In fact, this is not just about ideological differences or partisan politics, but also about good governance. The vote, although one that can be seen, as spiteful from the far right, is also about accountability, transparency, and the integrity of the EU’s institutions. These are principles that have been repeatedly undermined during her tenure.
This week, the President of the EU Commission resorted to the usual victimisation rhetoric. We are now familiar with her narrative. It is always Russia to blame, calling those who oppose her as Russian puppets that are trying to discredit her leadership. Well, if there was any leadership at all. However, Ursula’s behaviour dissipated into a tiring chorus of repeated false narratives, exactly like what the Kremlin resort to when they are a little cornered to save embarrassment. The present crisis has nothing to do with Russian interference. It was The New York Times, not the Kremlin, that requested the disclosure of text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer at the height of the 2020 pandemic. And it was the European Court of Justice, not some random foreign agent, that ruled in favour of publishing those messages, deeming her refusal a breach of good governance.
Certainly, these are not isolated procedural issues. As I have already said in my preceding articles, they hit at the core of public trust. And many citizens are asking, why would the President of the European Commission refuse to disclose communications tied to one of the largest vaccine procurement deals in the EU’s history? Everyone comes to the same conclusion, that the refusal suggests not confidentiality but concealment. And when Europe’s highest court censures the EU Commission, actually its president, for bad administrative practices, the political consequences must follow. But apparently there are no political consequences for the President of the European Commission. The political consequences apply only to heads of state and government. Just do not try to understand it.
This is hardly the first time von der Leyen has treated governance as a personal theatre. As I reiterated in preceding commentaries, I have always cautioned against her approach. Indeed, it is one that often privileges geopolitical posturing over pragmatic policymaking, which is not even her duty to monopolise. From her persistence on centralising power within the EU Commission to her inclination to bypass institutional checks, her style has always been more presidential than collegial. Europe, however, is not a one-woman show. It is a collective project of sovereign nations, grounded in law, balance and transparency.
What irked me most though, other than the messages exchanged between themselves, is the erosion of climate ambition. It is indeed another glaring example of backtracking. The much-promoted European Green Deal, which was launched with great fanfare, especially the disclosure requirements, was completely diluted. Certain key legislative frameworks, which barely saw their operationalisation, were weakened, with deadlines pushed further into the political oblivion, possibly to the point when even the President will no longer be in the system. Von der Leyen promised transformation but is delivering hesitation within the realm of ESG. The strategy seems increasingly clear; promise much, deliver selectively, and manage optics at all costs to safeguard her position.
The same pattern is visible in her recent social policy proposals. The proposed European Pillar for Social Rights Action Plan and the Nature Credit Action Plan were designed not to reshape Europe’s socio-economic landscape but to conciliate disappointed progressives and offer just enough lure to leftist political factions ahead of today’s vote. These proposals lack real implementable solutions and were never intended to become foundational policy. They are gestures of expediency, which require further thought and enhancements if we truly want to change Europe for the better. Equally dishonest is her strategic narrative of Russian interference to garner the support of Eastern MEPs. Indeed, her constant appeals to geopolitical unity conceal deeper fractures, as well as mistrust among member states. For someone who speaks so often of defending the European way of life, von der Leyen’s actual governance record reveals a leader more concerned with managing perceptions and her position than solving the real EU problems. A leader whose instinct is to deflect rather than disclose seems not to serve Europe but to survive within Europe.
I am positive that Ursula von der Leyen will survive today’s vote. For this reason, the European Union will remain burdened with the same political contradictions that have hindered its development since 2019. Surely, the EU will remain tied to a Commission that speaks of transformation but delivers uncertainty. One that promotes narratives over substance. And one that has, through its hubristic behaviour, alienated not only its critics but its closest institutional allies. One thing is certain, von der Leyen cannot afford four more years of this uncertainty, and so does the EU. The world is changing rapidly and unpredictably, and hence we need to have proper leadership, ideally a diplomatic one. In my opinion, the President did not really understand the complexity of the European project during the past six years. I think she was more into trying to Germanise Europe. What we need is an approach that governs with humility, inclusiveness and institutional fidelity. A leader who builds, not divides.
In this respect, today’s vote is a referendum not only on von der Leyen, but on the kind of governance we want in Europe. If the European Parliament signals its discontent, even without securing the two-thirds required to remove her, that message will resonate through Brussels and perhaps beyond. It will remind the Commission that power must be exercised with consent and accountability. What Europe needs is a vibrant, adaptable economy, a governance model rooted in clarity and flexibility, and a better posturing on human rights. Today’s vote may not change the presidency, but it should change the narrative. And perhaps, just perhaps, it will mark the beginning of the end of an era that Europe can no longer afford.
