This was long - but I hope at least somewhat illuminating.

The next plenary meeting will happen in two weeks - until then 👀

💡The general take-away: Deducing political reasoning from plenary votes alone is highly complex (and not always possible). Especially the reasons for voting against something can vary widely. Amendments are *the* important factor when trying to understand these decisions.

In this specific case - the most probable explanation is that the votes against are a mix: People who wanted a wider-ranging derogation extended (EPP) voted against bc of the amendments adopted & people who were against the extension on principle saw a chance of gaining a majority.

A vote against something could always mean "I disapprove of this idea in general" or "I think this is the wrong implementation" or even "I think this is not strict enough".

For the final texts - as sets of amendments - things become only more complicated.

From the votes alone, the motivation for voting one way or another are never clear. With amendments, it's usually easier to deduct, as they are quite specific - but even then:

*After* this and other amendments were adopted, the resulting text failed to reach a majority in the plenary.

**Both the amendments and the final vote have been widely shared on various platforms and people were at times surprised on who voted which way.**

(Finding the amendment texts starting from our site is not perfect right now: Each vote has a link "Report or Resolution", which will bring you to the EP website where you can find the text of all amendments via a drop-down using the amendment number. We are working on improving this.)

In this final round of #chatcontrol 1.0 votes, a key amendment containing privacy guardrails was adopted with only a single vote majority:

howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574

(In the official Parliament records, those votes contain "Commission Proposal" as their subject, which is why this is also what we display on our site. This can be somewhat confusing, as the proposal might have been already amended. Amendments contain amendment numbers in their subject.)

2) Who was in favor of what?

In plenary, MEPs can propose changes to the tabled texts (here: proposal by the commission), known as amendments. Obviously, those are voted on first. Then, when all amendments have been voted on, a vote on the final, resulting text is held.

The public record on the exact mechanism with which this happened is very thin. If anyone can explain to us the formal mechanism behind this - please reach out! ✉️

The following negotiations with the member states (Council) then failed.
Somehow the initial commission proposal - without the privacy respecting amendments adopted in the previous plenary - came back on the agenda for last plenary, on demand of the EPP.

Vote results: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1232 as regards the extension of its period of application Find out how the Members of the European Parliament voted.

In this case: The responsible committee (LIBE) proposed a rejection of the proposal. Plenary chose to deviate from this recommendation and adopted a proposal for an extension incorporating privacy guardrails. This happened in the first March plenary & this was the final vote:
howtheyvote.eu/186972

The proposal - as changed by the committee - is voted on in Plenary, with other amendments possible. This is then discussed with the Council and if agreed upon, becomes EU law. If no agreement is reached, this process can repeat (multiple readings of a law).

1) Wasn't there a vote on this last plenary already?

Yes. And this is also the most ominous part of the whole process. Super brief version of how an EU law is made: The commission proposes something (here: extending the derogation). Parliament discusses this in a committee and proposes an opinion.

This vote drew a lot of attention, as many people are concerned about the privacy implications of #chatcontrol proposals. Hence, many people wondering "who protected our privacy?" "which MEPs were in favor of #chatcontrol" and - "wasn't there a vote on this last plenary"?

While this aim sounds great - the proposed solution is deeply flawed. For more substantive background information and technical explanations, we'll defer to former MEP Patrick Breyers website: www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/cha...

Vote results: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1232 as regards the extension of its period of application Find out how the Members of the European Parliament voted.

Plenary rejected the commission proposal to extend a derogation from the ePrivacy directive which allowed scanning electronic communication with the aim of "combating CSAM" (also known as #chatcontrol 1.0). This derogation now expired on the third of April.

howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270

❗While this is not the first time the EPP & the far-right form a majority together, building a majority against S&D/Greens, this case is special: Journalist prev. reported on a chat-group in which EPP and far-right MEPs discussed this file.
Plausible deniability for cooperation no longer applies.

Vote results: Common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union (Return Regulation) Find out how the Members of the European Parliament voted.

❗The EPP together with the far-right voted to enter negotiations with the Council on a text regarding the EUs "Return Regulation". Part of the bill would allow member states to build return hubs in third countries, based on bilateral agreements.

howtheyvote.eu/votes/189597

This will be more text than usual - bare with us. Corrections and additions are highly welcome! 🙏

Both of these topics sparked intense debates, possibly in different groups. This thread, although very late, is an attempt to hopefully reach a few folks in each. And especially on the #chatcontrol vote - try a stab on some questions that came up *a lot*.

A blue tinted picture of the European Parliaments plenary chamber in Strasbourg. Text overlay reads: Plenary Spotlight - European Parliament. Bubble indicating "March 26th".

With some delay - a thread on the last plenary votes on March 26, including:
- round 2 of #Chatcontrol 1.0, including an attempt to explain how to make sense of plenary vote results, and
- ❗the EPP cooperating with the fa-right on migration.

The link is for the final vote in plenary which ultimately failed. The screenshot ist from an earlier vote on Amendment 34, which you can also find on our site by following the amendments tab from the site of the final vote. Hope this helps 🤗

Check the results of every MP by our friends at How They Vote EU: howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270

Here's the story of How They Vote EU & why they use Tuta: tuta.com/blog/open-so...

Vote results: Common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegallyin the Union (Return Regulation) Find out how the Members of the European Parliament voted.

Das genaue Abstimmungsergebnis auch hier: howtheyvote.eu/votes/189597

Breakdown of the vote by HowTheyVote.EU

At @howtheyvote.eu they now have the breakdown of the vote: As expected, there were a few rebels within S&D and Renew, but the right-wing majority stood firm: EPP (with very few rebels) and all of ECR, Patriots for Europe and AfD-led ESN voted together:

Find out how Members of the European Parliament vote Find out how Members of the European Parliament vote.

3. The AI part of the "digital omnibus" will be voted on.

Vote on the agenda will happen on Wednesday.
If the votes stay on, they will happen on Thursday.

We'll try to post here ASAP once the votes are up - or you can subscribe to howtheyvote.eu in your favorite feed-reader!

🗳️ We'll have a two-day plenary session this week with some high-stakes votes:

1. After the negotiations in the trilogue failed, #chatcontrol 1.0 is back on the agenda.

2. After several delays, the EU-US trade deal made it on the voting list once more.

Secrecy Tracker: Transparency battles shaping the EU in 2026 Dear readers, Welcome back to Secrecy Tracker, with our first update of the year on what the EU is keeping behind closed doors. I’m Alexander Fanta, a journalist with Follow the Money. In this edition...

Recommended reading in this regard: This edition of the Secrecy Tracker by @euobserver.com, FollowTheMoney, and @investigate-europe.eu:

euobserver.com/201072/secre...