Two censure bids landed within hours of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the Union speech.
Both targeted the EC for what they said was its ongoing failures. Both claimed she has lost legitimacy. But instead of joining forces, the Left and Right appear to be digging opposing trenches.
Yesterday, just hours after von der Leyen’s address, the right-wing European Parliament group Patriots for Europe and the Left group tabled separate motions of no confidence.
Both accuse the EC of failure on trade, transparency and accountability. Their texts overlap on key criticisms but diverge on political aims — raising the prospect of parallel debates and complicating efforts to rally a common front against the EC.
The Patriots’ President Jordan Bardella said in a press release: “Europe cannot continue under a Commission that has failed on trade, abandoned transparency and rejected accountability.”
He added the motion would “provide clarity in October: Who still supports Ursula von der Leyen?”
Vice-President Kinga Gál highlighted the “most pressing challenges that Europe is facing” and said the EC “has failed on peace, in trade, on competitiveness and on migration”.
At the core of the Patriots’ motion stands trade policy. They say the Mercosur deal and the European Union-US trade framework have “gravely undermined Europe’s economic strength and strategic autonomy,” calling them “damaging agreements”.
Bardella described the deal with Mercosur, the South American regional trade bloc, as a “triple betrayal: Of our farmers, our consumers and the environment. It increases imports from the other side of the world, produced under practices that do not respect our rules.”
The left-wing voiced a similar criticism. “Mercosur allows imports of beef, soy, and other agricultural products — don’t we already produce them here?” said Manon Aubry, Co-Chair of the Left group, during a press conference in Strasbourg on September 11.
On the US trade deal, both sides struck the same note. Bardella called it a “capitulation”, while Aubry branded it “submission”.
Even centrists echoed the wording: Yvan Vegourstraete of the EP’s Renew Europe group used both terms when describing the US deal.
Across the spectrum, criticism has focused on what is seen by many as unfair competition for European farmers and non-respect of EU standards.
Both groups also pointed to what they called democratic backsliding within the EC and the “erosion of accountability” toward member states and citizens. But their approaches differed.
Co-Chairs Aubry and Martin Schirdewan said the Left would not back the Patriots’ text.
“We won’t vote in favour of a far-right motion,” Aubry said. “They link immigration and security. We don’t want to legitimise that.”
Notably perhaps, the Patriots’ press release made no mention of immigration. The Left seemed to fear that if it supported the right-wing motion, it would be seen as agreeing with all of it.
“There are two motions of censure but they don’t focus on the same thing,” Aubry said. “I hope that if there are to be debates in plenary, there will be two different debates, and two votes.”
Sustainability was another dividing line. “We don’t want the Commission to jeopardise the Green Deal and its ambitions,” Aubry said.
She warned: “We are seeing a sliding of the Right to the far-right. I don’t think that by hiding away you’ll be able to beat the far-right.”
On social policy, Schirdewan recalled that von der Leyen had promised action on housing. “Last year she announced a housing initiative. Yesterday she repeated the same promise, because she has done nothing in a year,” he said.
“I am convinced we will gather enough support to go forward with the entire democratic spectrum.”
The Left’s motion also highlighted Gaza, accusing the EC of failing to act against “systemic violations of international law” by Israel.
The Patriots reacted sharply to the Left’s refusal to co-operate. Danish MEP Anders Vistisen told Brussels Signal: “We once thought the Left also stood for anti-corruption, fair trade, free speech and transparency.
“Sad to see they now associate such values with the Right. The usual left-wing hypocrisy: They claim to oppose federalism and the grand coalition — but when action is required, they always betray their own words.”
The Left insists the censure is not a tactical game but a political act.
Whether either motion gains traction remains unclear. It is not yet known how much of the right-wing would support the Left’s version, or what centrist parties would do if either motion went to plenary.
The European Free Alliance (EFA), allied with The Greens/European Free Alliance, was one of the few groups to issue a clear decision. “Members of the EFA chose not to support today’s motion of no confidence, a move led by far-right MEPs from the European Conservatives and Reformists Group,” its press release stated.
“We do not want to follow the far-right, but we also do not want to support the Commission.”
EFA President Diana Riba i Giner said: “We will not take part in this vote because we refuse to legitimise the far right’s political manoeuvres.
“At the same time, we cannot support a European Commission that is increasingly drifting away from the political centre and failing to uphold its responsibilities on social justice, climate action, and fair trade.”
Bardella has indicated he could support the Left’s motion if his own does not pass. But, for now, both camps remain on separate tracks — leaving von der Leyen’s opponents divided as they prepare their challenge.
