Recommendation on smoke- and aerosol-free environments
Importance Score
Low importanceWhy this vote stands out:
- ✓Some political group division
- ✓Some national delegation divergence
- ✓Close result
- ✓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 “Recommendation on smoke- and aerosol-free environments”. EPP, ECR, Renew and Left voted mostly in favour, while S&D, PfE, Greens-EFA and ESN voted mostly against. NI mostly abstained. The motion was adopted by a narrow margin (222 for, 204 against, 23 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 18 votes. 274 MEPs did not vote.
Groups whose absences exceeded the margin
- EPPhad 79 absent MEPs (margin was 18)
- S&Dhad 46 absent MEPs (margin was 18)
- Renewhad 36 absent MEPs (margin was 18)
- PfEhad 33 absent MEPs (margin was 18)
- ECRhad 25 absent MEPs (margin was 18)
Countries whose absences exceeded the margin
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
- Italy29
- Poland28
- Portugal10
- Romania10
- Belgium8
- France39
- Germany35
- Spain22
- Netherlands11
- Czech Republic7
- Belgium
- Estonia
- Finland
- Germany
- Italy
- Latvia
- Lithuania
- Malta
Full breakdown by all countries
Individual MEP positions
Loading individual positions…