Skip to content

Member

Terry REINTKE

Greens · Germany

Group
Greens Verts/ALE
Country
Germany
Roll-call participation
92.6 %ⓘ of 620 roll calls in office · chamber median 90.6 % · whole term, final votes
With majority line
99.3 %ⓘ of 574 votes where the group had a line · Greens median 96.4 %
More facts (5)
National party
GRÜNE. Bündnis 90/Die Grünen
In office
Since 16 Jul 2024
Against clear line
0 of 559 votesⓘ
Committees
CONT (substitute), SEDE (substitute)
Member id
103381
More

Record

The member’s figures against the median of their group and of the chamber. Each vote counts the member in the group they belonged to that day.

Roll-call participation ⓘ

92.6 %

574 of 620 final votes while in office

Greens median: 92.3 % (+0.3 pts)

Chamber median: 90.6 %

With majority line ⓘ

99.3 %

570 of 574 votes where their group had a line

Greens median: 96.4 % (+2.9 pts)

Against clear line ⓘ

0.0 %

0 of 559 votes where their group had a clear line

Abstention ⓘ

3.3 %

19 of 574 votes cast

Participation 92.6 % — Greens median 92.3 %, 54 members.ⓘ
Data as a table
Participation among the 54 members of the Greens with enough votes.
FigureParticipation
Terry REINTKE92.6 %
Greens median92.3 %
Lowest in the group44.2 %
Highest in the group99.4 %
Members54
With majority line 99.3 % — Greens median 96.4 %, 54 members.ⓘ
Data as a table
With majority line among the 54 members of the Greens with enough votes.
FigureWith majority line
Terry REINTKE99.3 %
Greens median96.4 %
Lowest in the group82.4 %
Highest in the group99.8 %
Members54
  • Whole term, 620 final votes; 620 of 794 decisions had a final vote recorded by name. The dots are the other members of Greens; no ranks.
  • “No vote recorded” is not the same as absent: leave, illness and chairing the sitting look the same.
  • A group’s line is inferred from its members’ votes — Parliament publishes no whip.

Votes, 5 928

Export

Every roll-call vote of the term with the member’s position, newest first.

Result: for–against–abstained. Majority line: how most of the member’s group voted that day (“Tie” when no position won). ≠ group marks a vote otherwise than a clear line (at least two thirds, with at least 10 members voting) of their group.
DateDecision and voteResultPositionMajority line
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 75, adding text after paragraph 5 343 for, 247 against, 5 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 74, adding text after paragraph 5 338 for, 261 against, 8 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 27, adding text after paragraph 5 201 for, 390 against, 14 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 4, adding text after paragraph 5 280 for, 292 against, 26 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 64 to paragraph 5 200 for, 397 against, 6 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 47, adding text after paragraph 4 437 for, 82 against, 82 abstainedPosition: Abstained Majority line: Abstained
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 25, adding text after paragraph 4 231 for, 350 against, 18 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 24, adding text after paragraph 4 272 for, 256 against, 77 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 8, adding text after paragraph 4 124 for, 428 against, 50 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 23 to paragraph 4 427 for, 156 against, 24 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 63 to paragraph 4 267 for, 332 against, 8 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 21, adding text after paragraph 3 194 for, 399 against, 11 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 7, adding text after paragraph 3 136 for, 423 against, 46 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 62 to paragraph 3 92 for, 488 against, 12 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 19, adding text after paragraph 2 203 for, 390 against, 11 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Paragraph 2 — part 2 524 for, 75 against, 7 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Paragraph 2 — part 1 596 for, 8 against, 2 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 45, adding text after paragraph 1 427 for, 149 against, 29 abstainedPosition: No vote recorded Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 18, adding text after paragraph 1 111 for, 439 against, 51 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Paragraph 1 — part 2 435 for, 127 against, 47 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Final vote — text as a wholeAdopted 601 for, 4 against, 5 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 5, adding text after recital H 200 for, 406 against, 4 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 13 to recital C — part 2 344 for, 201 against, 63 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 13 to recital C — part 1 378 for, 202 against, 30 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 4, adding text after recital B 195 for, 403 against, 6 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 12, adding text after paragraph 22 186 for, 408 against, 18 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 10, adding text after paragraph 5 207 for, 397 against, 8 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Paragraph 5 — part 2 512 for, 86 against, 8 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Paragraph 5 — part 1 602 for, 8 against, 3 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 9, adding text after paragraph 2 — part 2 210 for, 396 against, 1 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 9, adding text after paragraph 2 — part 1 210 for, 395 against, 1 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 14 to paragraph 2 — part 2 347 for, 202 against, 62 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 14 to paragraph 2 — part 1 381 for, 202 against, 27 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 7, adding text after paragraph 1 181 for, 424 against, 6 abstainedPosition: No vote recorded Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 6, adding text after paragraph 1 196 for, 411 against, 3 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 2, adding text after paragraph 1 — part 2 344 for, 256 against, 8 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Narco-trafficking in Europe’s waters: protecting our borders and supporting our law enforcement officers Amendment 2, adding text after paragraph 1 — part 1 213 for, 394 against, 1 abstainedPosition: No vote recorded Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Final vote — text as a wholeAdopted 368 for, 172 against, 69 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Amendment 1, adding text after recital G 141 for, 462 against, 11 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Separate vote on paragraph 22 452 for, 119 against, 39 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Separate vote on paragraph 20 480 for, 116 against, 19 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Paragraph 13 — part 3 582 for, 10 against, 13 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Paragraph 13 — part 2 275 for, 270 against, 64 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Paragraph 13 — part 1 490 for, 120 against, 3 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Separate vote on paragraph 12 475 for, 121 against, 8 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Paragraph 5 — part 4 478 for, 126 against, 10 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Paragraph 5 — part 3 489 for, 116 against, 9 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Paragraph 5 — part 2 479 for, 124 against, 8 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Paragraph 4 — part 3 474 for, 126 against, 12 abstainedPosition: No vote recorded Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy and follow-up Paragraph 4 — part 2 499 for, 95 against, 19 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against

Show all 50 votes on this page

Roll-call participation

One cell per sitting while in office, shaded by the share of that day’s roll calls the member voted in. The official attendance register is kept separately by Parliament.

No vote recorded on 6 of 80 sittings with roll calls.

"No vote recorded" is not the same as absent: leave, illness and chairing the sitting look the same.

Data as a table

Voting neighbours

Members who voted the same way most often in the roll calls they both took part in, within and outside the member’s group (group at the date of each vote), over all roll calls of the term.

At least 200 shared roll calls over at least six months in office together. Within = both sat in the same group on the date of the vote; a member who changed group can appear on both lists. Baseline = the median agreement of all pairs of members of the groups the two sat in on the date of each shared vote (within: the group they shared; outside: the two groups), weighted by the votes they shared in each combination.

Within Greens

Agreement: roll calls where both cast the same position, of the roll calls both voted in while in the same group (“shared”); a count below 50 shared. Baseline: the median agreement of every pair of members of that group.
SelectMemberGroupCountryAgreementBaseline
Hannah NEUMANN GreensGermany99 % of 5 052 shared94 %
Bas EICKHOUT Former memberGreensNetherlands99 % of 4 355 shared94 %
Erik MARQUARDT GreensGermany99 % of 5 187 shared94 %
Anna CAVAZZINI GreensGermany99 % of 5 457 shared94 %
Katrin LANGENSIEPEN GreensGermany99 % of 4 999 shared94 %
Daniel FREUND GreensGermany99 % of 5 473 shared94 %
Michael BLOSS GreensGermany99 % of 5 369 shared94 %
Maria OHISALO GreensFinland99 % of 4 639 shared94 %
Martin HÄUSLING GreensGermany99 % of 5 222 shared94 %
Alexandra GEESE GreensGermany99 % of 4 894 shared94 %

Show all 10 neighbours

Outside the group

Agreement: roll calls where both cast the same position, of the roll calls both voted in while in different groups (“shared”); a count below 50 shared. Baseline: the median agreement of every pair of members of the groups the two sat in on those votes (groups at the date, weighted by the votes shared in each combination).
SelectMemberGroupCountryAgreementBaseline
Aurore LALUCQ S&DFrance89 % of 4 352 shared83 %
Mohammed CHAHIM S&DNetherlands89 % of 4 795 shared83 %
Raphaël GLUCKSMANN S&DFrance88 % of 4 886 shared83 %
Emma RAFOWICZ S&DFrance88 % of 3 793 shared83 %
Thijs REUTEN S&DNetherlands88 % of 5 339 shared83 %
Udo BULLMANN S&DGermany88 % of 4 617 shared83 %
Marit MAIJ S&DNetherlands88 % of 5 469 shared83 %
Lara WOLTERS S&DNetherlands88 % of 4 984 shared83 %
Murielle LAURENT S&DFrance87 % of 4 998 shared83 %
Katarina BARLEY S&DGermany87 % of 3 905 shared83 %

Show all 10 neighbours

Work

Seats in committees, delegations and intergroups, and the dossiers the member leads, shadows or negotiates.

Seats

Body: the committee, delegation or intergroup, with its kind. Role: the member’s role in it. From, To: the dates of the seat (“now” while it lasts).
BodyRoleFromTo
Committee on Budgetary ControlCONT CommitteeSubstitute19 Jul 2024now
Committee on Security and DefenceSEDE CommitteeSubstitute23 Jan 2025now
Delegation to the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership AssemblyD-UK Joint parliamentary committeeSubstitute19 Sept 2024now
Delegation for relations with JapanD-JP DelegationSubstitute19 Sept 2024now
Intergroup on LGBTIQ+IG10-16 Intergroup / working groupMember31 Jan 2025now

Show all 5 seats

Dossiers

Show all 7 dossier roles

Topics they work on (model-assigned)

Counts: dossiers they spoke on, led or amended, and their questions and motions.

In the chamber

Speeches and statements in plenary debates, newest first; the verbatim report is on Parliament’s site.

43 contributions recorded; 40 on behalf of their group; 98 minutes of speaking time.

Show all 40 recent contributions

Questions and motions, 3

Parliamentary questions and motions for resolutions the member authored or co-signed, newest first.

Amendments tabled in committee, 7

Committee amendment documents that carry amendments by the member, with how many are theirs.

Show all 7 amendment documents

Connections

Dossiers they lead or shadow, committees, party, delegation and other related pages.

Political group

National delegation

  • Delegation Germany National delegation

Sources & citation

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

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). “Terry REINTKE”. Member record. memberId 103381. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/members/103381?page=2&scope=final&vscope=all (retrieved 25 September 2026). Official source: Member’s profile, European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/103381. Data: EP Open Data: member record, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/meps/103381?format=application%2Fld%2Bjson (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-member-103381,
  author = {{EU Parl Watch Research}},
  title = {{Terry REINTKE}},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/members/103381?page=2&scope=final&vscope=all}},
  url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/members/103381?page=2&scope=final&vscope=all},
  urldate = {2026-09-25},
  publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
  note = {Member record. memberId 103381. Official source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/103381. Data: EP Open Data: member record (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}
}