Every month, after each plenary session in Strasbourg, this page is updated with the votes that mattered — the votes come with explanations: what was decided, by what margin, and (where the record allows) how the story broke down.
Parliament expanded the CBAM's list of covered products from 180 to 450 — including washing machines, car parts, and solar panels — while strengthening anti-circumvention rules.
The subject: The measure's core goal is to stop foreign manufacturers from turning raw steel or aluminium into finished goods before shipping them into the EU, as a way of dodging the carbon border tax that applies to the raw materials. To close that loophole, MEPs expanded the list of covered finished and semi-finished products to 450 — the Commission had proposed only 180 — adding items like washing machines, car parts, and solar panels. A second, equally important goal is protecting competitiveness: making sure EU manufacturers aren't undercut by companies importing finished goods without ever paying a carbon price on the raw materials inside them.
Who voted how, and why: S&D, the EPP and Renew provided the strongest support; PfE was the most opposed. ECR mostly abstained rather than voting against.
A new fund to support EU exporters facing foreign competitors not subject to carbon pricing, directly linked to the CBAM reform above.
The subject: Parliament voted to create a temporary decarbonisation fund. This vote is closely tied to the CBAM reform above, which it reinforces. Originally proposed by the European Commission, the fund is meant to protect export-oriented EU industries: without support, they'd be at a disadvantage on world markets against foreign competitors facing looser environmental rules, since EU companies already operate under tighter constraints. In short, Parliament is offering funding to help these companies stay competitive while still meeting EU environmental standards (it can also be read as a way of discouraging EU companies from relocating abroad to escape those rules). The list of eligible sectors was also widened — to include fertiliser producers, for instance.
Who voted how, and why: Almost every group voted in favour, except ECR (which mostly abstained) and PfE (which voted against).
Adjustments to how the EU's carbon market absorbs excess allowances, aimed at keeping carbon prices high enough to drive decarbonisation investment.
The subject: The EU ETS is the system that allocates greenhouse-gas emission quotas to industry over a given period. This market stability reserve acts a bit like a central bank for carbon: it pulls allowances out of the market when supply is too high (which pushes prices down) and releases them back in when prices spike, balancing supply and demand. By doing so, Parliament avoids both a glut of cheap allowances and a shortage that would hurt EU industrial competitiveness. It also aims to keep the carbon price high enough to push companies to invest in decarbonisation. Parliament also wants to extend these reserve rules to the new carbon market that will soon cover the building and road-transport sectors.
Who voted how, and why: The EPP, while broadly supportive, was fairly split, with a notable share voting against within its own ranks. PfE and ECR voted mostly against.
Part of the three-text "Omnibus V" defence package, this text simplifies the European Defence Fund and unlocks financing for joint EU–Ukraine defence testing.
The subject: This vote is about unlocking and streamlining industrial defence financing. It's one of three linked votes making up the "Omnibus V" defence package (cutting red tape, speeding up military production, and unlocking industrial financing). This particular text simplifies the European Defence Fund, updating funding criteria to prioritise projects that demonstrate industrial excellence and efficiency. It also strengthens cooperation with Ukraine by unlocking financing for defence-related testing on Ukrainian soil. Taken together, the Omnibus V reforms aim to channel €800 billion in defence investment over four years.
Who voted how, and why: The text was adopted by a wide margin. Just before, a motion to reject it outright had itself been overwhelmingly defeated (102 votes for rejection against 543).
Turns fishing restrictions agreed by international bodies — including a ban on catching whale sharks and mobula rays — into binding EU law.
The subject: This vote turns international fishing rules into binding EU law. The EU is a member of several bodies that manage the world's oceans; when those bodies agree new protections for fish stocks, the rules don't automatically become EU law — Parliament has to vote to write them into it, a process known as transposition. This text does two things: it formally bans EU vessels from catching, keeping on board, or landing certain threatened species, including whale sharks and mobula rays, and it strengthens enforcement with new surveillance tools — onboard cameras, electronic catch logging, and port inspectors — to make sure the rules are actually followed.
Who voted how, and why: A little over half of the PfE group voted against or abstained; the other groups voted overwhelmingly in favour.
Renews EU funding for nuclear safety expertise, training and oversight in neighbouring and candidate countries, and sets rules for decommissioning old reactors.
The subject: This vote matters beyond the EU itself — it has a genuinely international dimension. It renews the EU fund that finances expertise, training and oversight on nuclear safety in third countries, meaning neighbouring states and EU candidate countries. The goal is to make sure those countries meet radiation-protection and radioactive-waste standards as strict as the EU's own, to safeguard the Union's own security. The text also sets out how the safe decommissioning of old nuclear reactors at the end of their life will be financed and managed, including the safe storage of spent fuel.
Who voted how, and why: PfE was the most divided group, splitting roughly evenly between for, against and abstention. Every other group voted overwhelmingly in favour.
Next update: after the next plenary session, in October 2026.
Parliament's consent to the revamped EU–Mexico Political, Economic and Cooperation Strategic Partnership Agreement — the first major overhaul of the EU–Mexico relationship since 2000.
The subject: The "Modernised Global Agreement" updates a 2000-era framework covering trade, political dialogue, and cooperation between the EU and Mexico. Parliament's accompanying resolution frames the partnership around democratic principles and the rule of law, including dialogue on the protection of journalists and human rights defenders, judicial independence, and anti-corruption cooperation.
Who voted how, and why: The agreement passed with support spanning the EPP, S&D, Renew, and the sovereigntist right (PfE, ECR) — the latter generally favorable to bilateral trade deals negotiated outside multilateral frameworks. According to reporting on the debate, only the Greens and The Left voted against; both groups have historically pushed for human-rights and environmental clauses in trade deals to be enforceable rather than declaratory, which is the most likely explanation for their dissent here.
A companion vote allowing the trade provisions of the modernised partnership to take effect early, while the full agreement completes ratification in all member states.
The subject: Interim trade agreements let the trade chapters of a broader partnership apply before every member state has ratified the full deal — a mechanism the EU uses because full ratification (needing all 27 national parliaments) can take years, while businesses want tariff and market-access changes sooner.
Who voted how, and why: The vote split almost identically to the companion Global Agreement vote — the same coalition of EPP, S&D, Renew, PfE and ECR in favor, with the Greens and The Left opposed on the same human-rights-enforceability grounds.
Final approval of updated rules clarifying which country's social security rules apply to EU workers living or working across borders, including new criteria for unemployment benefits and rules to curb "letterbox company" abuse.
The subject: When an EU citizen works across borders, which country's social security rules apply — and who pays what — has historically been a legal grey zone exploited by "letterbox companies" that exist on paper in one country to dodge another's labour rules. This revision (agreed with the Council in April 2026) sets clearer criteria for determining the applicable country, adds mandatory prior notification for postings in construction, and tightens rules on cross-border unemployment benefits.
Who voted how, and why: The margin (511–87–61) suggests broad cross-group support — the reform was backed by the European Trade Union Confederation and had already cleared a Council–Parliament trilogue deal in April. The against/abstain votes most likely came from the more sovereigntist right, generally wary of any EU-level coordination of national welfare and labour systems — but the exact group-by-group breakdown for this vote wasn't available in the public sources checked.
Parliament's consent to EU ratification of a new Council of Europe convention setting minimum EU-wide standards for criminalizing environmental offences — pollution, biodiversity destruction, and illegal handling of hazardous waste. The Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) recommended ratification ahead of the vote.
The subject: The convention sets EU-wide minimum standards for criminalizing serious environmental harm — illegal pollution, destruction of protected habitats, and mishandling of hazardous waste — and pushes member states toward comparable minimum penalties, part of a broader European push (also visible in the EU's own revised Environmental Crime Directive) toward treating large-scale ecological damage as a criminal, not just administrative, matter.
Who voted how, and why: The Legal Affairs Committee's (JURI) pre-vote recommendation held — the convention passed with a broad cross-group coalition backing it: EPP, Renew, S&D, The Left, and Greens/EFA all voted mostly in favor, consistent with the vote's framing as a consensus technical ratification rather than a left-right fight. The opposition came almost entirely from the sovereigntist right — ECR, Patriots for Europe, and ESN voted mostly against, wary as ever of EU-level criminal-law harmonization reaching into national justice systems — with a large share of ECR splitting off into abstention rather than a straight "no."
Parliament backed opening interinstitutional negotiations with the Council on the creation of a digital euro — a new, ECB-issued electronic form of money designed to work both online and offline, alongside cash.
The subject: The digital euro would be issued directly by the European Central Bank rather than by private payment processors (Visa, Mastercard, and large non-EU tech platforms) — framed explicitly as a way to reduce Europe's dependence on foreign-owned payment infrastructure. Parliament's negotiating position includes built-in privacy safeguards, a cap on how much any individual can hold (to protect commercial banks from a sudden flight of deposits), free basic services, and a legal obligation for euro-area countries to keep cash accessible. Fernando Navarrete Rojas (EPP, Spain), the MEP behind Parliament's report on the file, leads Parliament's negotiating team into talks with the Irish Council Presidency.
Who voted how, and why: The PfE, ECR, and ESN political groups had formally challenged the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee's 23 June decision to open talks at all, and provided most of the "against" votes — their objection centers on giving the ECB a direct retail role many on the sovereigntist right see as federalizing overreach. The EPP, S&D, Renew, and Greens/EFA backed proceeding to negotiations.