Guidelines for the 2026 budget – Section III
Budget66%★
- title/description contains "budget"
Importance Score
High importanceWhy this vote stands out:
- ✓Resolution / budget vote
- ✓Budget-related
- ✓High-interest topic: Budget
- ✓Some political group division
- ✓Some national delegation divergence
- ✓Close result
- ✓High participation
- ✓Some 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 “Guidelines for the 2026 budget – Section III”. EPP, ECR, PfE, ESN and NI voted mostly in favour, while S&D, Renew, Greens-EFA and Left voted mostly against. The motion was adopted by a narrow margin (337 for, 311 against, 11 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 26 votes. 60 MEPs did not vote.
Groups whose absences exceeded the margin
- EPPhad 32 absent MEPs (margin was 26)
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
- Poland45
- Italy39
- Czech Republic18
- Romania17
- Hungary16
- France40
- Germany37
- Spain30
- Netherlands17
- Belgium14
- Austria
- Croatia
- Cyprus
- Estonia
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Italy
Full breakdown by all countries
Individual MEP positions
Loading individual positions…