Yves here. Nick Corbishley has been chronicling Ursuala von der Leyen’s scandals and misrule as EU Commissioner. Some of his offerings:
Looking Ahead, But Not Forward, to Five More Years of “Queen” Ursula von der Leyen
The post below brings this sorry tale up to its current chapter, that of von der Leyen facing a vote of no confidence in the European Parliament. Alex Christoforou, who had made her a regular Clown World subject, thinks the Commission chief will easily beat back this challenge by accusing opponents of being Putin stooges. The assessment of Politico’s morning European newsletter:
SOCIALISTS AND LIBERALS PILE PRESSURE ON VDL: This Thursday, MEPs will vote on a far-right-backed motion to bring down von der Leyen’s Commission. While both the Socialists and liberals, who on paper at least support her executive agenda, have stated they won’t back the motion, they’re trying to use the opportunity to squeeze political commitments out of the EU executive by threatening to abstain instead, POLITICO’s Max Griera reports.
Deliberations ongoing: The chairs of the European People’s Party, S&D and Renew met on Tuesday night to try to iron out their differences. Both the Socialist and liberal groups will separately meet today to take a final decision on how they will vote.
She’s safe, right? Von der Leyen is expected to survive. Abstentions from her allies in the S&D and Renew groups would not change that, as the motion would need a two-thirds majority in Parliament to pass. Still, the loss of fulsome support would send a strong political message that von der Leyen can’t count on Parliament to back her unconditionally.
What they want: Among other requests, the Socialists want a commitment from von der Leyen to keep intact the European Social Fund as part of the EU’s long-term budget. They fear she will try to cut it. She met political group leaders on Tuesday afternoon, but the Socialists were not happy. “We missed clarity and commitment … If nothing changes, it will be difficult for the S&D to decide not to abstain on Thursday,” a spokesperson for the group told POLITICO.
“Renew will very likely vote against,” said a spokesperson for its group chair, Valérie Hayer. Yet, some of its delegations, such as Ireland’s Fianna Fáil, are pondering whether to abstain, and a final decision will only be taken later today.
Ursula come home: Hayer asked von der Leyen to ensure her own EPP stops passing measures with far-right parties and commits to only working with Socialists and liberals. “Madam President, I must now tell you: nothing is guaranteed. We expect you to take back control, so that at last the political agenda we share with you can truly move forward,” Hayer stressed. Good luck with that.
Green extremes: The far-right Patriots group of Le Pen, Orbán, Salvini & co. seized control of parliamentary talks on the EU’s next climate milestone on Tuesday, sending shockwaves through the Strasbourg chambers. Today, centrist MEPs are mounting a last-ditch effort to blunt the Patriots’ influence on the law — but it all depends on which side the EPP chooses. Zia Weise and Max have more here.
So Politico’s assessment is that von der Leyen will have to make policy concessions to survive. A query to EU-based readers: will von der Leyen emerge unscathed? Or will this action blunt her authority, as Russiagate and impeachment did to Trump 1.0?
By Noor Price, a student at Bielefeld University majoring in political science, and a freelance writer specializing in international politics, EU governance, and power accountability issues
On July 7, 2025, in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, passed a motion teeing up a vote of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, thrust this “technocratic reformer” into the eye of the storm. This marked the first collective accountability mechanism targeting an EU Commission president since 2014, a crisis unparalleled in her political career.
Von der Leyen’s predicament is no coincidence. For years, the “many gates” scandal has drawn her into a self-constructed “systemic decay”—from power privatization to the collapse of transparency pledges, her leadership logic is eroding the trust foundation of the EU.
“Pfizergate”: The Betrayer of Transparency Pledges
In 2021, von der Leyen reached political zenith by leading the EU’s 900-million-dose vaccine procurement contract with Pfizer. Yet this “high point” has now become a dagger in her side. When the European Court ruled that her refusal to disclose text messages with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla constituted procedural misconduct, the years-long “many gates” storm finally exposed the systemic rot. The court’s verdict struck at the core: her claim of “legal privilege” to withhold communications with Bourla was a blatant disregard for procedural justice. More suspiciously, her absence from a critical hearing in Liège, Belgium, in January 2025 citing “pneumonia” transformed this “silence tactic” into a catalyst for escalating public scrutiny over allegations of “over-purchasing” and “confidentiality clauses.” When power dynamics override transparency principles, the EU’s moral authority reduces to empty rhetoric.
“Piepergate”: The Collapse of Procedural Justice<
The “Piepergate” scandal of 2024 completely dismantled von der Leyen’s elite facade. By parachuting her German CDU ally Marcus Pieper into the SME commissioner role despite his bottom-ranking performance in selection exams, overriding two higher-scoring Swedish and Czech female candidates, she sparked a 382-144 parliamentary condemnation vote. Green and Social Democratic MEPs directly accused her of “opaque procedures.” The irony deepened when she refused to restart the selection process, reducing her “performance-based politics” slogan to ridicule. When political interests override competence and fairness, the EU’s “meritocracy” myth crumbles.
“Queen Ursula”: The Reality of Power Grabbing
Von der Leyen increasingly exhibits a U.S.-style understanding of executive power. Stefan Lehne, a senior researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted, “The real power is with the president. Individual commissioners have lost a lot of power; the collegium as such is weaker, the president is stronger.” For instance, her refusal to transfer authority during her 2025 medical leave drew criticism from German Green MEP Gabriele Bischoff as “treating the Commission as a personal stage.” Former Commissioner Thierry Breton openly accused her of “suffocating management,” implying suppression of dissent. Her power expansion transcends internal affairs. In 2023, her unilateral, high-profile visit to Israel, where she adopted a pro-Tel Aviv stance sharply contrasting with EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell’s balanced approach, exemplified systemic contempt for collective decision-making. When European Parliament President Roberta Metsola threatened to sue the Commission over its unilateral €150 billion defense loan plan, the crisis evolved from personal misconduct to a systemic institutional crisis.
“The Revolving Door”: Shadows Over EU Governance
More alarming is the growing scrutiny of von der Leyen’s ties to the U.S. During U.S.-EU tariff negotiations, her attempt to secure “key sector concessions” to delay American sanctions triggered panic among member states over sovereignty concessions. The close relationship between her chief of staff and U.S. national security officials, coupled with family connections to Pfizer and McKinsey, has sparked accusations of a “Brussels-Wall Street revolving door.” From silence on Gaza’s humanitarian crisis to “selective empathy” in Korean and Argentine air disasters, these or explicit allegations, though unproven, have exposed the hypocrisy of the EU’s “values-based diplomacy.”
Von der Leyen’s political trajectory resembles a satirical drama: she once championed “technocratic neutrality,” yet her power privatization has trampled rules; she loudly proclaimed “European sovereignty,” yet she frequently conceded in transatlantic power struggles; she touted “transparency and equality,” yet each scandal has exposed the EU’s institutional rot. This no-confidence crisis is not just her personal downfall but a self-inflicted blow to the EU’s supranational governance model through systemic loopholes.
Consequences for incompetent and/or corrupt people is not how we do things in the EU.
If it was possible for VDL to be promoted she would be.
Indeed, the more incompetent and corrupt the better. This way corrupt puppet figures like van der Leyen will better serve, not EU nor European interests, but that of US hegemony, big finance, big pharma ( one and the same) and a unipolar, rules based order. The subjugation of European (economic, military, industrial, information and political) sovereignity has long gone hand in hand with NATO, however the cooption of our media, civil society and political classes has been in a new kind of overdrive since some prominent European States refused to support the illegal Iraq war in 2003 – Colonel Larry Wilkinson was actually at the table when the decision was made to increase intervention in European politics to promote US/ Neo Con interests. And even more so since the GDP of the EU exceeded the US in 2008/ 2009. Through “their” (American/ British/Israeli/ Corporate) lobbies, capital, secret services, blatant sabotage and NGO regime change apparatus Europe is being attacked and destroyed from within, . It’s not anything new, but it is accelerating right now. Eery, but not surprising, how in this state of vulnerability, unelected corrupt characters like Van der Leyen are making the major decisions, allying themselves with genocidal Zionists, militarizing the EU and drawing ever more power into the Commission and generally critically undermining all the strengths of the EU project.
Whenever I see the initials “VDL” at first blush I think of venereal disease. Why is that?
Beause she’s gynecologist?
The way I see the EU, the real power centres are the Commission, the Council (consisting of member states executive governments) and the ECB. The Parliament acts as brake and control but can’t steer (because it lacks legislative initiative and doesn’t control the appointment of the Commission – witness the decline of the Spitzenkandidaten system). In Parliament, the groups are weak but the national parties are strong (they control their respective ballot lines) so parliamentarians might very well grand stand against the Commission President for reasons of how it plays in their member state (as long as national parties approves).
If the Council tells VdL to step down, I think she will. And they might, dependent on how bad she looks in parliament and of how (and if) this plays in their member states’ media. But then again they might not, and since media is language and state based, in a pinch a member state government can always blame the other member state governments. The Council isn’t known for transparency.
Even if she might leave. It´s all completely meaningless.
Just listen to what MEPs have to say about how business is conducted.
It´s a nightmare for any decent human being.
The video of the debate in the EU-Parliament
MEPs debate the vote on a motion of censure against the European Commission
50 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKAZhUlrFOQ
p.s. According to MEP Martin Sonneborn, VdL will not be present in person on Thursday´s decision.
She will instead be residing in Rome for a gathering on the Ukraine Fund over 15bn Euros. However Blackrock e.g. has already said they would back out after hardly any interest of investors due to the volatile situation in Ukraine.
https://x.com/MartinSonneborn/status/1942140034049601932
I think that Ursula will skate though here. When she was asked about turning over her messages to Pfizer she said that there was no point as they were “boring”. The fact that they did not kick her out on the spot suggests to me that the fix is in and that a case will be made that she has to be kept in place as she is a bulwark against Russian aggression. And only a Putin-supporter would vote against her after all.
Au contraire, a national patriot might foolishly vote against her, but any self respecting Putin-supporter will be working the room to pile up the votes in her favour. She is what Brexiteers expected of the Commission as Maastricht and Lisbon rolled down the track – an otherwise unemployable bunch of wannabe and failed pols forming an unelected technocracy ignorant of technology and a pretend meritocracy without much evidence of merit created through the expensive acquisition of educational credentials and/or through effective networking and/or for total idiots who emerged from the right birth canal – the new feudalism based who you know rather that what you know and can do competently. Michael Young really worked out and predicted how things have developed in The Rise of the Meritocracy.
Useless’s survival can only weaken the EU as the Commission, under her guidance, becomes ever more ambitious in interfering in the politics of the member states whilst focusing on advancing it’s place in a pretend world multilateralism (the favoured term to boost the globalist cause), unifying it’s political structures to maintain the unique sanctions backfiring weapon, developing a military controlled by Useless given her previous success in training the German military in advanced broom stick warfare (so far she’s limiting the flying licence to herself and the Estonian demonstrating her deep cultural knowledge by continually singing her favourite Mad Woman arias), and limiting national economic development by increasing the centralisation of taxation in full support of the ECB as it imposes it’s economic scorched earth policy on the member states.
I think President Putin will be very grateful if Ms. Useless fonda Lyin’ remains the EU’s big cheese and states drop out of the EU one by one as they respond to gravity and the economic opportunities offered by Russia in the new world of multipolarity, bi-lateralism and regional tri- or multilateralism, in a renewed Westphalian order in which national and cultural differences are respected.
My guess is that she is safe unless she does something to anger the European Council and even then it needs to be something big before the European Council takes action.
The European Council knows that if they were to have her removed then the next step would be to appoint another European Commission and doing that would mean work for them.
The members of the European Council might say, believe and think that work is bliss but they their belief comes with one caveat: Work is good when others do the work. Putting together a new Commission or even only appointing a new President for the Commission is work they do not want to do and it is work they can’t delegate.
Looking at her CV then it seems likely that she knows that she will only get sacked if she angers the wrong people and even then she needs to anger them enough. She hasn’t done it in the past, I believe it is unlikely that she’ll do it now or in the future.
Other than MEPs she is unlikely to ever come across anyone who would openly accuse her of wrongdoing so I hope the MEPs will continue to raise the issue, if nothing else it seems that she is rattled now to the point of attacking (possibly slander) the ones who are raising the issue.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/07/ursula-von-der-leyen-slams-russian-puppets-as-meps-debate-motion-to-topple-her-presidency
Basically, I do not see it as an issue about right or wrong (I believe she is in the wrong), the issue is about power. Unless the European Council assembles and uses power to have her replaced then she can remain (comfortable if the MEPs give up) as Commission President.
The problem (or solution, on the opposing side) is that the members of the European Council have more empathy for VdL than they do for the general population in the countries they supposedly represent. Connection with the constituents is one of the telomeres that gets lost as political systems age. And the EU started old, by design.