The European Parliament adopted its resolution on the housing crisis by 367 to 166, with 84 abstentions, securing a broad majority. EPP, S&D, ECR, and Renew voted in favour, while Greens/EFA and The Left voted against from the left -- viewing the text as not going far enough in addressing social concerns such as tenants' rights and homelessness -- and PFE and ESN opposed it from the right. The resolution endorses an “ambitious” European Affordable Housing Plan, calls for a Housing Simplification Package to cut red tape, and proposes speeding up permitting through 60-day deadlines and "positive administrative silence."

The most politically charged clashes came on interventionist amendments from The Left and Greens/EFA. Proposals to make the right to housing legally enforceable (Amendment 24), to cap housing costs at 30% of disposable income (Amendment 65), to block securitisation of housing assets (Amendment 63), and to create an EU-wide transparency register for real estate ownership (Amendment 83) were all rejected by wide margins, with only Greens/EFA and The Left in favour. Notably, S&D sided with the centre-right majority against these measures -- a significant positioning choice given the party's traditional pro-social housing stance. On Amendment 24, 37 S&D MEPs broke with the group line to vote for the binding housing right, driven by nearly all Spanish PSOE and French PS members voting in favour, alongside all Croatian SDP MEPs.

From the right, ECR and PFE pushed amendments linking housing allocation to migration status (Amendment 96, rejected 177-431) and youth home ownership incentives (Amendment 97, rejected 173-423). Attempts to repeal the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (Amendments 59/1 and 59/2) and to abolish the building ETS (Amendments 58/1 and 58/2) were backed by PFE, ECR, and ESN but rejected, with EPP crucially siding with S&D and Renew to defend the existing green building framework. An ECR amendment seeking to constrain EU housing competences and prevent "competence creep" (Amendment 99) was similarly rejected (193-419), though it attracted support from PFE and ESN.

The final text reflects a centre-ground compromise: strong on supply-side measures, deregulation, and permitting acceleration, but resistant both to binding social rights demanded by the left and to the sovereignty-focused constraints sought by the right. On Paragraph 4/2 -- stating that housing is a Member State competence -- the breadth of support was remarkable, with EPP, S&D, ECR, PFE, and Renew all voting in favour (516-79), while Greens/EFA voted against. PFE showed notable internal divisions throughout, abstaining or splitting on multiple paragraph votes on permitting and land-use provisions.

The resolution on the European Ombudsman's 2024 annual report was rejected by a narrow margin of 233 to 250, with 76 abstentions -- one of the few final texts to fail this plenary. The rejection was secured by S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left voting against the resolution, while EPP and PFE voted in favour. ECR and ESN mostly abstained, signalling ambivalence toward the final text.

The report became a battleground on two sensitive issues: NGO financing transparency and Frontex's mandate. On Paragraph 12/1, which calls on the Ombudsman to examine the Commission's practice of financing NGOs that subsequently lobby Parliament and the Commission — stressing the risk of conflicts of interest — the centre-right prevailed (passed 313-245): EPP, PFE, ECR, and ESN voted in favour, while S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left opposed. The more specific formulations targeting environmental NGOs lobbying for green policies (Paragraphs 12/2, 12/3) were rejected, as was Paragraph 12/4, indicating the majority supported the general principle but not the sharper environmental focus. Amendment 31, which sought to name Teresa Ribera as a specific case of conflicts of interest, was rejected (148-382), failing to gain EPP support.

On border management, Paragraph 17 -- which framed Frontex's mission as protecting borders, controlling traffickers, and fighting illegal immigration -- passed narrowly (290-258), with EPP, PFE, ECR, and ESN forming the majority against S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left. All amendments attempting to reframe Frontex toward humanitarian obligations and rights-based oversight (Amendments 17, 18, 37, 38) were rejected. The unusual cross-bloc alignment on Amendment 40/1 -- criticising the Commission's lack of transparency in drafting the proposed legislation on combating online child sexual abuse -- saw S&D, PFE, Greens/EFA, The Left, and ESN unite to pass it (291-201), with EPP and Renew voting against. The final rejection of the overall resolution suggests that the accumulation of contentious provisions made the text unacceptable to the centre-left bloc.

The resolution on the European Semester for economic policy coordination 2026 was adopted by 392 to 219, built on the backing of EPP, S&D, Renew, and Greens/EFA. PFE, ECR, and ESN voted against, while The Left also opposed the final text from the opposite ideological direction. The adopted text calls for integrating the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the European Pillar of Social Rights into the European Semester (Paragraph 24/2, passed 444-176), and endorses supplementing EU economic governance with new own resources (Paragraph 32/3, passed 383-220).

A striking feature was the near-unanimous adoption of Paragraph 28/2 (593-23), which demands improved accountability and information flow to Parliament. All eight groups voted in favour -- a rare show of consensus. By contrast, attempts by ECR and PFE to tighten CSRs to purely macroeconomic content (Amendment 15) and their criticism that linking CSRs to NRPPs significantly increases the Commission's discretionary power (Amendment 16) were rejected, as were their concerns about tying competitiveness funding to CSR compliance (Amendment 17).

The Left's amendments were uniformly rejected by overwhelming margins. A proposal to replace all EU economic governance with a "Social Progress and Employment Pact" (Amendment 2) fell 58-544. Calls to expand fiscal escape clauses beyond defence to health and ecological emergencies (Amendment 8) were rejected 71-388, with S&D and Greens/EFA notably abstaining rather than opposing outright -- a signal of sympathy for the principle, if not the specific proposal. An amendment calling Maastricht-era thresholds outdated (Amendment 4) attracted only 71 votes in favour against 476.

The resolution on public access to EU documents (2022-2024) was adopted with near-unanimity in the final vote (602-9-8), as all eight political groups voted in favour. This rare consensus masked a sharp confrontation on 14 amendments, all of which were rejected with an identical coalition pattern: PFE, ECR, and ESN voted in favour while EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left opposed.

The rejected amendments followed a consistent theme: strengthening NGO funding transparency and Commission accountability. Amendment 7 flagged a "lack of transparency" in EU-NGO relations. Amendments 2 through 6 cited European Court of Auditors findings pointing to insufficient transparency in EU funding for NGOs, insufficient checks on NGO status and funding sources, including failure to identify real stakeholders, or undisclosed advocacy activities. Amendment 8 demanded automatic publication of all grants and contracts on a searchable platform. Amendment 9 called for publication of NGO funding documents under the 2021-2027 MFF. Amendment 13 sought an independent review of the Commission President's document handling with disciplinary measures. All failed by consistent margins of roughly 175-425.

The uniformity of these votes reveals a clear dividing line: the right-of-centre opposition bloc (PFE, ECR, ESN) sought to use the transparency report as a vehicle for scrutinising NGO-Commission financial relationships, while the governing majority -- including EPP -- judged these additions as outside the scope of the access-to-documents framework. That EPP sided with the centre-left to reject these amendments, despite its own critiques of NGO influence in other dossiers, underscores the distinction the largest group draws between transparency mechanisms and targeted political investigations.

The resolution on the European Semester's employment and social priorities for 2026 was adopted by 404 to 208, with EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left in the majority. PFE, ECR, and ESN voted against. The text covers affordable housing, child poverty, traineeships, and platform work -- reflecting a social policy agenda that has widened the Semester's scope well beyond fiscal coordination.

The most politically significant vote was on Amendment 8, which called for a dedicated EUR 20 billion EU budget for the European Child Guarantee. It passed (313-270) with S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left in favour, while EPP, ECR and ESN voted against. Most of PFE abstained. A counter-amendment (Amendment 20) from PFE seeking to soften the €20 billion target by replacing it with an unspecified "adequate portion" and stressing national responsibility for combating poverty, was rejected (165-461). On traineeships, Amendment 11 promoting remunerated, high-quality traineeships with an ambitious directive passed by a razor-thin margin of 299 to 293, with S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left narrowly overcoming EPP, PFE, ECR, and ESN.

Five PFE amendments defending national competences were uniformly rejected. These included proposals to assert that the European Pillar of Social Rights has no binding force (Amendment 19), to reject any EU coordination or scrutiny of national defence spending through the European Semester (Amendment 24), and to prioritise national workforce mobilisation and education systems over labour mobility and migration (Amendment 22). Each attracted support from PFE and ESN but was firmly blocked by the EPP-to-Left majority. Housing again featured prominently: Paragraph 17/1, integrating affordable housing into the Semester framework, passed comfortably (434-173).

The European Parliament adopted its resolution on the upcoming European Research Area Act by 399 to 78, with 69 abstentions. EPP, S&D, ECR, Renew, and Greens/EFA formed the majority, while PFE and ESN voted against. The Left group overall abstained, although some members broke ranks and voted either in favour or against the text.

The debate centred on the balance between competitiveness-driven and socially oriented research policy. Paragraph 6, calling for stronger private-sector participation in R&I through public-private partnerships, passed comfortably (450-63) with support spanning from EPP to Greens/EFA. A notable cross-bloc alignment emerged on Amendment 16, which called for increased public funding for programmes like Horizon Europe: it passed (283-262) with the unusual coalition of EPP, Greens/EFA, and The Left voting in favour, while S&D, ECR, and Renew voted against. This rare configuration -- the largest and smallest groups bridging ideological distance -- reflected shared concern that public research funding should match the ambition of the ERA framework.

Two sets of amendments were systematically rejected. From the right, PFE and ECR pushed amendments opposing limits on Hungarian universities' participation in EU programmes (Amendments 1, 4) and calling for prioritised AI-focused strategic funding (Amendment 3) -- all blocked by the centre-left-to-centre-right majority. From the left, proposals to exclude Israeli universities from Horizon Europe (Amendment 15), to guarantee stable employment contracts for researchers (Amendment 12), and to require research to serve "social needs" through "public and democratic" systems (Amendment 7) were similarly defeated. The final text thus steers a pragmatic middle course: boosting both private and public R&I investment without the political conditions sought by either flank.

The European Parliament adopted the amended regulation extending voluntary child sexual abuse detection measures by 458 to 103, with 63 abstentions. The text permits providers to continue scanning for child abuse material, while adding significant privacy safeguards demanded by Parliament. EPP, S&D, ECR, and Renew formed the core majority, with Greens/EFA also voting in favour. PFE was split, and ESN voted against.

A motion to reject the regulation outright failed (172-435), with mostly just the Greens/EFA and The Left supporting the rejection. The key safeguard amendments all passed: Amendment 1 (540-21) restricted detection strictly to known child sexual abuse material using proportionate technologies. Amendment 2/1 (469-77) required technologies to be the least privacy-intrusive available under GDPR principles. Amendment 3 (488-92) shortened the regulation's application period from April 2028 to April 2027, keeping the pressure on co-legislators to reach a permanent solution.

The most contentious amendment was Amendment 5, which required that detection be targeted only at individuals flagged by judicial authority with reasonable suspicion. It passed (235-203-174) with an unusual coalition: ECR, Greens/EFA, and The Left voted in favour, while EPP voted against and S&D, PFE, and Renew were deeply split -- many choosing to abstain, with views particularly divergent within PFE where Czech ANO and Spanish Vox voted in favour while Austrian FPÖ and Hungarian Fidesz voted against. On encryption, Amendment 18, explicitly prohibiting the weakening of end-to-end encryption, was rejected (270-325) in a vote that cut across traditional blocs: PFE and ECR joined Greens/EFA in support, while EPP and S&D opposed. This produced the rare spectacle of digital rights advocates and sovereigntist groups aligned against the two largest centrist forces on a fundamental rights question.

The fisheries management resolution was adopted by an overwhelming 528 to 21, with 62 abstentions, reflecting broad consensus on the framework text. EPP, S&D, PFE, ECR, and Renew all voted in favour, along with Greens/EFA. The Left was the sole group to vote against the final text, with its delegation internally divided (9 for, 16 against, 13 abstentions).

The most politically charged votes concerned seal products and marine species protection. Amendment 1, noting that 94% of respondents in a Commission consultation opposed placing seal products on the market and 89% viewed seal hunting as raising moral concerns, passed narrowly (277-246-90). S&D, Greens/EFA, and The Left carried this amendment against EPP, ECR, and Renew -- with EPP notably split (26 for, 123 against) and PFE mostly abstaining. However, a stronger Amendment 3 calling to fully uphold the EU ban on seal product trade was rejected (217-306-86), indicating the Parliament was willing to acknowledge public sentiment but not to harden the regulatory stance.

On environmental commitments, Paragraph 8/2 highlighting the EU target of protecting 30% of seas by 2030 passed (455-147) with EPP, S&D, and Renew united, while PFE, ECR, and ESN opposed. Paragraph 18/1 aligning fisheries management with the Biodiversity Strategy and the Kunming-Montreal Framework similarly passed (444-153). Amendment 2, which would have explicitly added overfishing impacts on whales and dolphins as factors to assess, was rejected (247-334), with S&D internally split (58 for, 59 against), driven by all Spanish PSOE and nearly all German SPD MEPs voting in favour while Italian PD were split and Romanian PSD voted against. -- a signal that even within pro-environmental groups, prescriptive language on specific species assessment remains contentious.

The resolution on the gender pay and pension gap was adopted by 458 to 72, with 98 abstentions. EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left voted in favour. ECR abstained as a group (60 abstentions vs. 14 against), while PFE was split and ESN opposed. The breadth of the majority reflects cross-partisan agreement on the report's core premises -- though the component votes reveal important fault lines.

The inclusion of sexual and reproductive healthcare, including access to abortion, proved the most divisive provision. Paragraph 10/1 calling for the EU and Member States to apply gender equality to programming, public services, and the provision of sexual and reproductive healthcare passed (449-139-39), with EPP voting in favour (150 for, 8 against). The more explicit formulation in Paragraph 10/2, specifically calling for access to "free, safe and legal abortion", also passed but with a smaller margin (377-163-70), as significant internal divisions emerged within EPP (73 for, 53 against, 32 abstentions), with most German CDU/CSU and Austrian ÖVP MEPs voting against while Spanish PP largely abstained, and PFE split three ways.

On substantive economic provisions, Paragraph 29 -- calling for EU-wide gender-neutral job evaluation guidelines and a pilot project for merit-based pay in female-dominated sectors -- passed (418-140-70) with EPP strongly in favour. Paragraph 30, proposing a European care deal with a dedicated MFF funding stream, passed (340-155-124) but with EPP heavily split (69 for, 48 against, 44 abstentions), as most German CDU MEPs and Italian Forza Italia voted against while Spanish PP largely abstained, and ECR mostly abstaining. The swift transposition of the Pay Transparency Directive (Paragraph 53, passed 379-180-68) similarly saw EPP internally divided, with 43 members voting against the group line, led by nearly all German CDU MEPs and all CSU, Swedish Moderaterna, and Austrian ÖVP members. The overall pattern suggests that while the broad majority holds on pay equity principles, specific binding mechanisms and care investment commitments expose a centre-right that is far from monolithic.

The Commission proposal on emission credit calculations for heavy-duty vehicles (2025-2029) was adopted by 473 to 81 with minimal controversy. EPP, S&D, PFE, ECR, Renew, and ESN all voted in favour, while Greens/EFA and The Left voted against -- viewing the credit mechanism as too lenient on the trucking industry's decarbonisation timeline.

All three tightening amendments proposed by Greens/EFA were rejected by near-identical margins of roughly 80-470. Amendment 3, which would have restricted early emission credits from 2025-2029 for use only in 2030-2031, was defeated 90-462. Amendments 4 and 5, introducing more stringent calculation adjustments and transitional multipliers, failed by similar margins. The unanimity of opposition across EPP, S&D, PFE, ECR, Renew, and ESN underscores a strong consensus that the Commission's proposed crediting framework strikes a politically acceptable balance between environmental targets and industry transition costs. This is one of the few dossiers where the mainstream left (S&D) aligned firmly with the centre-right against environmental tightening.

The AFET committee resolution on EU enlargement strategy was adopted by 385 to 147, with 98 abstentions. EPP, S&D, and Renew formed the core majority, with Greens/EFA also voting in favour. PFE and ESN voted against. ECR abstained as a group -- internally torn between pro-enlargement and sovereigntist factions (7 for, 11 against, 54 abstentions). The Left was similarly divided, with most members voting against or abstaining.

The most dramatic vote was on Paragraph 32, calling to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in intermediate steps during EU enlargement negotiations. It passed by a single vote: 301 to 300, with 24 abstentions. S&D, Renew, and Greens/EFA provided the yes votes, while PFE, ECR, and ESN opposed. The decisive factor was EPP's deep internal split: 78 members voted in favour and 79 against, with nearly all German CDU/CSU, all Italian Forza Italia, and all Swedish Moderaterna backing QMV, while most Spanish PP, nearly all Polish PO, and all Greek Nea Demokratia voted against. This razor-thin result reflects the fundamental tension within the largest group between those who see QMV as essential for breaking the enlargement deadlock and those who view unanimity as a safeguard for national interests. The broader QMV proposal in Paragraph 33 -- extending majority voting to rule of law and the MFF, among others, -- was rejected (268-328), as EPP's internal balance tipped the other way (56 for, 101 against).

The resolution on Elene Khoshtaria and political prisoners under the Georgian Dream regime was adopted by an overwhelming 438 to 37, with 81 abstentions -- demonstrating broad parliamentary consensus on condemning political repression in Georgia. EPP, S&D, ECR, and Renew voted in favour, with Greens/EFA and The Left also supporting the final text. PFE mostly abstained (48 abstentions), and ESN voted against.

The two amendments revealed politically significant divergences. Amendment 1, which expanded the resolution to condemn the detention of former President Saakashvili as a "political hostage," passed (273-199-81) with EPP, ECR, and Renew in favour, but S&D voting against and Greens/EFA also opposing. This split reflects different assessments of Saakashvili's legacy within the pro-democracy camp. Amendment 2, criticising the influence of Russia, China and Iran in Georgia and demanding freedom of independent research, passed (277-244-31) with a similar right-of-centre coalition, while S&D and Greens/EFA voted against. Despite these disagreements on specific provisions, the strong final vote demonstrates that the political imprisonment of opposition figures in Georgia commands near-universal condemnation across the Parliament.

The Parliament addressed human trafficking linked to Russia's recruitment of non-Russian nationals -- particularly from Africa -- to fight in its war against Ukraine. The resolution was adopted by 479 to 17, with 43 abstentions, commanding support from EPP, S&D, PFE, ECR, Renew, and Greens/EFA. The Left was split, with 19 voting in favour and 16 abstaining.

Amendment 1, which sought to tie ending trafficking to a broader call for ending Russia's war under international law, was rejected (114-363-46). PFE and The Left voted in favour. EPP, S&D, ECR, and Renew all opposed the amendment. Amendment 2, which would have condemned Ukrainian forces for effectively kidnapping and holding against their will Colombian mercenaries, was rejected by a wider margin (58-410-63). The Left was split on the amendment (18 for, 12 against).

The resolution passed by a wide margin (460-71-88), with EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left all voting in favour. PFE largely abstained, with the majority of its MEPs choosing not to take a definitive position, while ESN voted against.

Two amendments from PFE and ECR were rejected. Amendment 2 asked the EU to acknowledge that its cultural sector — representing nearly 4% of GDP and eight million jobs — "may be affected by the use of creative works without compensation by generative AI" (rejected 159-426). Amendment 1 similarly declared that artistic creations "can effectively be copied and used illegally" by AI, while adding a caveat that any response should not hinder the competitiveness of the European AI sector (rejected 174-410). In both cases, EPP sided with the centrist-left majority against PFE and ECR.

The outcome signals a parliamentary preference for a balanced approach to AI and copyright rather than the stronger protectionist framing sought by the right. ECR's significant internal divisions on the final vote (33 for, 25 against, 15 abstaining), with all Polish PiS MEPs voting against and all Sweden Democrats opposing while Italian Fratelli d'Italia voted in favour, suggest the party remains torn between its pro-business instincts and its cultural conservative base.

The resolution passed with broad support (482-108-42), backed by EPP, S&D, ECR, Renew, and Greens/EFA. PFE opposed (with a third of its members abstaining), while ESN and The Left also voted against the final text.

Two left-wing amendments were overwhelmingly rejected. Amendment 1, which called for EU-Canada coordination to confront "the United States’ aggressive foreign policy and lack of respect for international law," was rejected 110-494, with only Greens/EFA and The Left in favour. Amendment 2, which sought to extend EU-Canada cooperation to coordinating Israel-related sanctions and inviting Canada to join the Hague Group, fell even more decisively (68-502), supported only by The Left while Greens/EFA largely abstained.

The votes demonstrate strong cross-party consensus on deepening EU-Canada ties, while drawing a clear line against framing the relationship as a counterweight to the United States or linking it to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The resolution on EU defence market integration passed 393-169-67, supported by EPP, S&D, Renew, and Greens/EFA. PFE and ESN voted against, while The Left also opposed. ECR was strikingly divided, with its members almost evenly split between opposition (35) and abstention (37), as all Polish PiS and all French Identité Libertés MEPs voted against while Italian Fratelli d'Italia abstained, reflecting the tension between supporting European defence cooperation and defending national sovereignty over armaments.

Two sovereignty-focused amendments were rejected. Amendment 1, which argued that a single market for defence fails to account for Member States’ sovereignty and called for voluntary intergovernmental coordination instead, was rejected 182-423. Amendment 2, which sought to affirm Member States’ exclusive prerogative over essential security interests under Article 346 TFEU, was similarly rejected 178-412. Both were supported by PFE, ECR, and ESN against the centrist majority.