INTRODUCTION
In a dramatic and highly charged session at the European Parliament, the attempt to secure the re-election of Ursula von der Leyen as the President of the European Commission faced an overwhelming backlash. This session uncovered the deep divisions in the European Union, with passionate speeches heard in its halls, which captured the profound dissatisfaction and anger of several MEPs and their constituents.
A Leadership in Question
Commenting on the reign of von der Leyen, Ewa Zajączkowska did not mince words: “Electing you in the previous term for the position of president of the European Commission has been a huge mistake” she proclaimed on behalf of all those who believe that the leadership of von der Leyen is fundamentally flawed.
The dark picture was drawn from Zajączkowska’s address of Von der Leyen as the architect of the policies that, in her opinion, have brought Europe into economic hardship and social instability.
Zajączkowska’s appeal is emotional as “a woman to woman, as a mother to mother.” She asked von der Leyen why she pushed for the migration pact, which in her view has placed the security of European women and children at risk. “You are to be blamed for every rape, every assault, every tragedy that resulted from the wave of illegal immigrants,” she accused, propounding on the argument that von der Leyen’s policies are detrimental to European society.
Corruption Allegations
Christine Margarete Anderson had very harsh views of the person von der Leyen is. Accusing her of corruption and mismanagement, Anderson deplored the opacity of vaccine contracts and associated wider-spread implications in policy. “Miss von der Leyen, shame on you. Shame on you with your Pfizer deal’s friend,” said Anderson in a furious and indignant tone.
That she was thereby closely treading on criminality also reverberated around the chamber, which further demanded her resignation.
Shifting to the Right
Charlie Andreas Weimers brought out the ideological betrayal that most of them felt. He bashed von der Leyen for subscribing to leftist policies as, according to him, Parliament was constituted by a centre-right majority. What comes through after Weimers is his pointing out that von der Leyen was not ready to talk about nuclear power and deportation policies—further suggesting an undermining of the electorate.
Economic Inequality
Aubry’s address was poignant and seemed to underline the socioeconomic disparities that have only increased under von der Leyen. “One in three Europeans must wish for meals,” lamented Aubry, who cast against von der Leyen for an emphasis on competitiveness rather than poverty and unemployment. Words such as those Aubry spoke bring home the struggles of everyday people all over the European continent, unlike von der Leyen’s seeming detachment from them.
A Call for Decency
The tone of Joachim Brudziński’s criticism was one of rebuke and about the breaking of promises. Citing how Poles have been let down, he blamed von der Leyen for deception and partiality. “Your management style was disastrous,” he declared, emphasizing the erosion of trust in European institutions under her leadership.
Conclusion
It was a vivid reminder of the level to which frustration runs in the European Union. Indeed, the grudging re-election of Ursula Von der Leyen, though the largest number of Eurosceptic MEPs voted against it, highlighted how fragmented and fissured has been this presidency. It is hard, with one in mind the many angry and disappointed MEPs, to escape the logic that with dispute and disquiet, the running sore of Europe has embedded in their leadership–Europe’s hunger for that changed feeling.
For more in-depth analysis and insights, watch our video. [https://youtu.be/x_66w5mNTY0]
