Financing for development – ahead of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville
Importance Score
Medium importanceWhy this vote stands out:
- ✓Very fragmented political vote
- ✓Significant 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 “Financing for development – ahead of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville”. S&D, Renew, Greens-EFA, Left and NI voted mostly in favour, while EPP, PfE and ESN voted mostly against. ECR mostly abstained. The motion was adopted by a narrow margin (312 for, 295 against, 57 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 17 votes. 56 MEPs did not vote.
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
- Italy57
- France38
- Spain25
- Netherlands16
- Romania13
- Germany46
- Poland28
- Czech Republic15
- Austria11
- Greece10
- Austria
- Belgium
- Croatia
- Cyprus
- Denmark
- Estonia
- Finland
- France
Full breakdown by all countries
Individual MEP positions
Loading individual positions…