Skip to content
EU Parl WatchResearch
Projects

Analysis

Coalitions

Final votes · whole term, 16 Jul 2024 – 25 Sept 2026 · topic Cohesion & regional funds (model-assigned) · clear lines

Which groups vote the same way, which sets of groups are on the winning side of final votes, and whose votes, taken away, would flip the outcome?

Cite
Export
Period Term202420252026Last 6 months
Custom dates
Votes Final votes20All roll calls67
Lines compared Clear lines (⅔)Majority lines ⓘ

Agreement between groups

How often two groups took the same line, of the votes where both groups had a clear line (at least two thirds of their votes cast, at least 10 members voting); votes where either was divided or had fewer than 10 voting are left out, so each pair has its own count — 20 votes in the selection. A count instead of a share under 20 votes.

Read the figures against each other, not alone: most votes pass by wide margins, so most pairs of groups agree often. Show contested votes only to see which groups vote together when the chamber is divided.

Each cell: of the votes where both groups had a clear line (at least two thirds of its votes), the share where it was the same. The more a cell's colour stands out from the page, the higher the share (scale below); the hatched diagonal is the group itself (method).
The LeftGreensS&DRenewEPPECRPatriotsESN
The Leftsame group16 of 1815 of 1914 of 1913 of 1910 of 1610 of 1414 of 19
Greens16 of 18same group18 of 1917 of 1916 of 1911 of 158 of 1412 of 19
S&D15 of 1918 of 19same group95 %90 %13 of 168 of 1455 %
Renew14 of 1917 of 1995 %same group95 %14 of 169 of 1450 %
EPP13 of 1916 of 1990 %95 %same group15 of 1610 of 1445 %
ECR10 of 1611 of 1513 of 1614 of 1615 of 16same group10 of 128 of 16
Patriots10 of 148 of 148 of 149 of 1410 of 1410 of 12same group11 of 14
ESN14 of 1912 of 1955 %50 %45 %8 of 1611 of 14same group

Same line: 0–19 %20–39 %40–59 %60–79 %80–100 %

Data as a table
Every pair of groups: votes where both had a clear line (at least two thirds of its votes), how many times the lines were the same, and the share.
GroupsVotesSame lineShare
The Left – Greens1816—
The Left – S&D1915—
The Left – Renew1914—
The Left – EPP1913—
The Left – ECR1610—
The Left – Patriots1410—
The Left – ESN1914—
Greens – S&D1918—
Greens – Renew1917—
Greens – EPP1916—
Greens – ECR1511—
Greens – Patriots148—
Greens – ESN1912—
S&D – Renew201995.0 %
S&D – EPP201890.0 %
S&D – ECR1613—
S&D – Patriots148—
S&D – ESN201155.0 %
Renew – EPP201995.0 %
Renew – ECR1614—
Renew – Patriots149—
Renew – ESN201050.0 %
EPP – ECR1615—
EPP – Patriots1410—
EPP – ESN20945.0 %
ECR – Patriots1210—
ECR – ESN168—
Patriots – ESN1411—

Groups on the winning side

Which sets of groups carried the final votes decided by a simple majority, members counted in their group on the day.

Groups on the winning side: the groups whose clear line (at least two thirds of their votes, at least 10 members voting) matched the outcome — For when it passed, Against when it failed; divided groups are in no set. Final votes: how many had exactly this set on the winning side. Share: of the final votes considered.
Groups on the winning sideFinal votesShareBar
The Left + Greens + S&D + Renew + EPP + ECR + Patriots + ESN735.0 %
The Left + Greens + S&D + Renew + EPP315.0 %
S&D + Renew + EPP + ECR210.0 %
The Left + Greens + S&D + Renew + EPP + ECR + ESN15.0 %
The Left + Greens + S&D + Renew + EPP + ECR + Patriots15.0 %
The Left + Greens + S&D + Renew + EPP + ECR15.0 %
Greens + S&D + Renew + EPP + ECR15.0 %
Greens + S&D + Renew + EPP + ESN15.0 %
Renew + EPP + ECR + Patriots15.0 %
Greens + S&D + Renew + EPP15.0 %
Show all 11 sets
The other 1 set.
Groups on the winning sideFinal votesShareBar
EPP + ECR + Patriots15.0 %

No final vote in this selection failed for want of an absolute majority.

Per group

Counted per group at the date of each vote; the non-attached have no line and are left out.

On the winning side: final votes decided by a simple majority where the group’s clear line matched the outcome, of those where the group had members voting. Pivotal: votes in the selection decided by a simple majority whose outcome would flip without the group’s members’ votes, of those where the group had members voting. Texts that failed for want of an absolute majority are left out of both.
GroupOn the winning sidePivotal
The Left13 of 200 of 20
Greens16 of 200 of 20
S&D18 of 200 of 20
Renew19 of 200 of 20
EPP20 of 202 of 20
ECR15 of 201 of 20
Patriots10 of 201 of 20
ESN9 of 200 of 20

About these figures

What was counted, what was left out, and how.

  • 20 votes considered (final votes matching the filters; scope).
  • 3 of 23 decisions in the period had no final vote recorded by name (a show of hands or a count without names) and cannot be measured.
  • Groups on the winning side are counted on final votes, pivotal groups on every vote in the selection, both over votes decided by a simple majority; a text that failed for want of an absolute majority (361 members) is counted apart (method).
  • Each member is counted in the group they belonged to on the day of the vote (group at the date).
  • Roll calls are not a random sample: final votes on laws are recorded by name, most other roll calls because a group asked for it. A group’s line is inferred from its members’ votes; the Parliament publishes no whip.
  • Methods: Agreement between two groups v1, Groups on the winning side and pivotal groups v1, Final votes and all roll calls v1, Group at the date of the vote v1.
  • Data as of 25 Sept 2026, 03:36 UTC (data stamp f37e5638cded, code 6d4005c55bde; what the stamp is).
Export
Cite

Sources & citation

Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.

Permalink
https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/analysis/coalitions?topic=budget%2Fcohesion&to=2026-09-25
Data source
Licensed CC BY 4.0.
Data version
data version f37e5638cded (25 Sept 2026) · methods: group-at-date v1, participation v1, abstention v1, loyalty v1, against-clear v1, cohesion v1, agreement v1, group-agreement v1, winning-side v1, similar-votes v1, scope v1, data-version v1 · methods
Retrieved
25 September 2026

Cite as

EU Parl Watch Research (2026). “Coalitions — Final votes · whole term, 16 Jul 2024 – 25 Sept 2026 · topic Cohesion & regional funds (model-assigned) · clear lines”. Analysis. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/analysis/coalitions?topic=budget%2Fcohesion&to=2026-09-25 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Data: European Parliament Open Data, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/ (CC BY 4.0); data version f37e5638cded (25 Sept 2026) · methods: group-at-date v1, participation v1, abstention v1, loyalty v1, against-clear v1, cohesion v1, agreement v1, group-agreement v1, winning-side v1, similar-votes v1, scope v1, data-version v1.
BibTeX 
@misc{epw-analysis-2026-09-25,
  author = {{EU Parl Watch Research}},
  title = {{Coalitions — Final votes · whole term, 16 Jul 2024 – 25 Sept 2026 · topic Cohesion \& regional funds (model-assigned) · clear lines}},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/analysis/coalitions?topic=budget%2Fcohesion&to=2026-09-25}},
  url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/analysis/coalitions?topic=budget%2Fcohesion&to=2026-09-25},
  urldate = {2026-09-25},
  publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
  note = {Analysis. Data: European Parliament Open Data (CC BY 4.0); data version f37e5638cded (25 Sept 2026) · methods: group-at-date v1, participation v1, abstention v1, loyalty v1, against-clear v1, cohesion v1, agreement v1, group-agreement v1, winning-side v1, similar-votes v1, scope v1, data-version v1}
}