Citizens’ dialogues and Citizens’ participation in the EU decision-making
Importance Score
Medium importanceWhy this vote stands out:
- ✓Some political group division
- ✓Some national delegation divergence
- ✓Very close result
- ✓High participation
- ✓Many MEPs voted against their group
Show full breakdown
Methodology: importance-v0.1 · The Importance Score is a prioritisation indicator. It does not judge whether a vote is good or bad.
What was this vote about?
This vote concerned “Citizens’ dialogues and Citizens’ participation in the EU decision-making”. S&D, Renew, Greens-EFA, NI and Left voted mostly in favour, while EPP, PfE, ECR and ESN voted mostly against. The motion was rejected by a narrow margin (336 for, 339 against, 17 abstentions).
Automated summary generated from official vote metadata and observed voting patterns. Not a legal interpretation.
Why it matters
This is a substantive vote (such as an amendment or resolution) that contributes to shaping the final position of the Parliament on a dossier. It reflects the political direction taken on specific provisions. The outcome was close, which makes individual choices and absences especially consequential.
Result analysis
Close vote analysis
The margin was 3 votes. 13 MEPs did not vote.
Groups whose absences exceeded the margin
- S&Dhad 4 absent MEPs (margin was 3)
Absences larger than the margin are numerically significant but do NOT imply the outcome would have changed. That would require modelling how each absent member would have voted, which this analysis does not do.
By political group
Country angle
- Germany55
- France43
- Spain41
- Romania17
- Netherlands16
- Italy44
- Poland41
- Sweden16
- Hungary13
- Czech Republic11
- Austria
- Belgium
- Bulgaria
- Croatia
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Finland
- France
Full breakdown by all countries
Individual MEP positions
Loading individual positions…