Skip to content

Member

Terry REINTKE

Greens · Germany

Group
Greens Verts/ALE
Country
Germany
Roll-call participation
97.0 %ⓘ of 66 roll calls in office · chamber median 93.9 % · 2024 (from july), final votes
With majority line
100.0 %ⓘ of 64 votes where the group had a line · Greens median 96.8 %
More facts (5)
National party
GRÜNE. Bündnis 90/Die Grünen
In office
Since 16 Jul 2024
Against clear line
0 of 62 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.

Period Whole term2024 (from July)20252026
Custom dates

Roll-call participation ⓘ

97.0 %

64 of 66 final votes while in office

Greens median: 97.0 % (±0.0 pts)

Chamber median: 93.9 %

With majority line ⓘ

100.0 %

64 of 64 votes where their group had a line

Greens median: 96.8 % (+3.2 pts)

Against clear line ⓘ

0.0 %

0 of 62 votes where their group had a clear line

Abstention ⓘ

0.0 %

0 of 64 votes cast

Participation 97.0 % — Greens median 97.0 %, 53 members.ⓘ
Data as a table
Participation among the 53 members of the Greens with enough votes.
FigureParticipation
Terry REINTKE97.0 %
Greens median97.0 %
Lowest in the group1.5 %
Highest in the group100.0 %
Members53
With majority line 100.0 % — Greens median 96.8 %, 49 members.ⓘ
Data as a table
With majority line among the 49 members of the Greens with enough votes.
FigureWith majority line
Terry REINTKE100.0 %
Greens median96.8 %
Lowest in the group84.6 %
Highest in the group100.0 %
Members49
  • 2024 (from July), 66 final votes; 66 of 81 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 Final vote — text as a wholeAdopted 339 for, 225 against, 16 abstainedPosition: Against Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026Strengthening global health resilience in partner countries Final vote — text as a wholeAdopted 319 for, 142 against, 19 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 73, adding text after recital H 181 for, 399 against, 2 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 16, adding text after recital G 252 for, 326 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 Recital F — part 3 381 for, 190 against, 4 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 Recital F — part 2 338 for, 233 against, 9 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 Recital F — part 1 524 for, 48 against, 5 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 58 to recital E 84 for, 484 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 57, adding text after recital D 193 for, 389 against, 4 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 56 to recital D 89 for, 494 against, 3 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 Amendments 14 + 59 (voted as one), adding text after recital C 204 for, 381 against, 9 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 61, adding text after recital C 215 for, 366 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 Amendment 60, adding text after recital C 209 for, 378 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 55 to recital C 95 for, 486 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 72, adding text after recital B 345 for, 242 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 Separate vote on recital A 459 for, 120 against, 10 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 42, adding text after citation 5 439 for, 128 against, 30 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 40, adding text after citation 1 392 for, 132 against, 62 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 79, adding text after paragraph 15 448 for, 137 against, 5 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 1, adding text after paragraph 14 — part 2 297 for, 267 against, 21 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 1, adding text after paragraph 14 — part 1 304 for, 268 against, 21 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 71 to paragraph 14 92 for, 496 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 77, adding text after paragraph 13 330 for, 250 against, 16 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 70, adding text after paragraph 13 93 for, 493 against, 5 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 39, adding text after paragraph 13 257 for, 331 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 13 — part 2 351 for, 232 against, 3 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 69 to paragraph 13 195 for, 392 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 53, adding text after paragraph 12 390 for, 143 against, 64 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 12 — part 4 441 for, 147 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 12 — part 3 427 for, 166 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 Amendment 36 to paragraph 12 231 for, 355 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 34, adding text after paragraph 11 261 for, 335 against, 4 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 52 to paragraph 11 259 for, 336 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 Amendment 10 to paragraph 11 208 for, 382 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 68 to paragraph 11 235 for, 358 against, 9 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 51, adding text after paragraph 10 277 for, 321 against, 5 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 10 — part 3 353 for, 240 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 Paragraph 10 — part 2 363 for, 231 against, 7 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 Paragraph 10 — part 1 390 for, 205 against, 4 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 67, adding text after paragraph 9 203 for, 392 against, 5 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 6, adding text after paragraph 9 266 for, 295 against, 37 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 50, adding text after paragraph 8 215 for, 335 against, 54 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 48 to paragraph 8 261 for, 316 against, 27 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 78, adding text after paragraph 7 395 for, 204 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 76, adding text after paragraph 7 177 for, 418 against, 13 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 66, adding text after paragraph 7 204 for, 395 against, 5 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 5, adding text after paragraph 7 202 for, 380 against, 18 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 30 to paragraph 7 253 for, 329 against, 22 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 65 to paragraph 7 91 for, 503 against, 9 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 29 to paragraph 6 261 for, 340 against, 6 abstainedPosition: For Majority line: For

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 0 of 16 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
Roll calls held at each sitting while in office and how many of them the member voted in.
SittingRoll callsVoted in
17 Jul 202411
18 Sept 202422
19 Sept 202466
8 Oct 202411
9 Oct 202422
10 Oct 202411
22 Oct 202455
23 Oct 202422
24 Oct 202422
14 Nov 202455
26 Nov 202488
27 Nov 202477
28 Nov 202466
17 Dec 202466
18 Dec 202475
19 Dec 202455

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?period=2024&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?period=2024&scope=final&vscope=all}},
  url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/members/103381?period=2024&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}
}