Always according to my conscience

According to my conscience. As always.

This time, the motions of no confidence in the European Commission came from both the far-left and the far-right ends of the political spectrum. Each side put forward its own.

If the real intention had been to remove Ursula von der Leyen, the approach would have needed to be very different. But let’s leave that aside. As the saying goes: their circus, their… well, let’s leave that too.

So, to the heart of the matter: why did I support both motions of no confidence?

For months we’ve been told that those of us in the political center must act “responsibly,” and that removing Ursula von der Leyen would plunge the institutions into chaos. That may be true — yet something is clearly wrong if we have become prisoners of our own processes. Prisoners of a center-right governance model in the European Union that sometimes holds the middle ground, but often doesn’t.

What ultimately guided my decision?

With the motion from the left, there was little room for doubt — the main accusations against the Commission President concerned the genocide in Gaza.

The motion from the far right was different. Although this one — unlike their first attempt — was more substantively grounded, I do not agree with them politically or ideologically. But you know what? I do not trust Ursula von der Leyen any more than I trust them. And that is what tipped the scale.

At the beginning of this mandate, I had a one-on-one meeting with von der Leyen. I told her very clearly what I expected from her Commission. Those expectations were not met — and clearly never will be.

Her “right-wing majority” won through rhetoric, manipulation, and, in many cases, outright lies — yet action and accountability remain absent.

They rose to power on anti-migrant sentiment, only to hand over billions in taxpayers’ money to Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, and Morocco — paying these countries to do Europe’s dirty work: to detain people using armed paramilitary groups, to beat them, drive them into the desert, rape them, and even sell them.

And let’s not even start on Gaza. It took von der Leyen two years to slightly harden her rhetoric — after the state of Israel had already killed at least 70,000 people, was firing on civilians, aid workers, and journalists, and starving the rest in what can only be called genocide.

In Serbia, in the name of “stability,” she supports a regime that unleashes its paid thugs on citizens who simply want a better future. With Trump, she bends on tariffs that damage the European economy.

My views on von der Leyen have never changed. Not once during this mandate did I support her. Nor did I oppose the first motion of no confidence before the summer. So I don’t understand why anyone is surprised now — calling my vote “bizarre.” Why? Because I gave her more than enough chances?

I know she’s not personally to blame for everything. I also know it’s unfair to those commissioners who genuinely want to do their jobs. But in the end, it’s precisely her style of leadership that prevents them from doing so.

Sadly, I cannot name a single concrete achievement from this Commission’s first year onward that deserves praise. And for that, regardless of all else, Ursula von der Leyen bears the primary responsibility. Despite the pressure to “act responsibly” and the argument that “there is no alternative,” my conscience would not allow me to vote otherwise.

I can make compromises — but there comes a point when enough is enough.

EP / Alexis Haulot