Skip to content
EU Parl WatchResearch
Projects

Vote · Roll call

Amendment 67, after paragraph 9

The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders

Vote
Amendment 67, after paragraph 9
Decision
No. 9 of the sitting of 17 Sept 2026
Result
203 for · 392 against · 5 abstained Rejected · roll call
Date
17 September 2026, 13:44
More facts (6)
Position
vote 52 of 138 on the decision
Requested by
roll call: The Left
Official label
B10-0406/2026 – After § 9 – Am 67
Text
Motion B-10-2026-0411
Dossier
2026/2870(RSP)
Vote id
197130
More
Cite this page

The members file includes members in office who did not vote.

Roll-call results (EP) (opens the official site)
Link to this page

Result

The vote as recorded by name.

Result: 203 for, 392 against, 5 abstained (roll call).

Rejected · 34 % of the votes cast were for.

Groups

Members' votes, each counted in the group they belonged to on the day. No vote: in office that day, no position recorded. Majority line: the most common position. Clear line: a position with at least two thirds of the group's votes (at least 10 members voting), otherwise Divided. Cohesion: Agreement Index, 0 = evenly split, 1 = all voted the same (method).
GroupForAgainstAbst.No voteMajority lineClear lineCohesionBar
The LeftFor 36Against 0Abst. 0No vote 8 of 44Majority line ForClear line For Cohesion 1.00
GreensFor 47Against 2Abst. 0No vote 4 of 53Majority line ForClear line For Cohesion 0.94
S&DFor 110Against 2Abst. 1No vote 22 of 135Majority line ForClear line For Cohesion 0.96
RenewFor 1Against 59Abst. 4No vote 14 of 78Majority line AgainstClear line Against Cohesion 0.88
EPPFor 0Against 151Abst. 0No vote 33 of 184Majority line AgainstClear line Against Cohesion 1.00
ECRFor 0Against 72Abst. 0No vote 12 of 84Majority line AgainstClear line Against Cohesion 1.00
PatriotsFor 0Against 68Abst. 0No vote 16 of 84Majority line AgainstClear line Against Cohesion 1.00
ESNFor 0Against 25Abst. 0No vote 2 of 27Majority line AgainstClear line Against Cohesion 1.00
No groupFor 9Against 13Abst. 0No vote 6 of 28Majority line —Clear line No line Cohesion —

Countries × groups

How each country’s members of each group voted.

The Left members by country who voted for, against or abstained (group at the date of the vote).
CountryForAgainstAbst.Bar
Belgium200
Germany100
Denmark100
Spain400
Finland300
France900
Greece100
Ireland200
Italy900
Netherlands100
Portugal200
Sweden100

Members

Each member’s recorded position, in the group they sat in that day. Filter by country, group, position or name.

Show all 600 members

No vote recorded, 117

Members in office that day without a recorded position. No vote recorded is not the same as absent: leave, illness or chairing the sitting look the same.

Show the 117 members

Name · group that day · country

Similar votes

Roll calls that split the chamber the most similarly: r is the correlation of members’ positions, over the members who voted in both. Other votes on the same decision are left out.

Result: for–against–abstained. For: share of the votes cast. Requested by: the groups that asked for a roll call.
DateVoteKindResultForRequested byr · shared
12 Mar 2026Amendment 37 to paragraph 16 Activities of the European Ombudsman – annual report 2024Amendment185 for, 364 against, 16 abstained Rejected For 33 %Requested by The Leftr · shared0.96 484 voters
27 Nov 2025Amendment 11, adding text after paragraph 9 Escalation of the war and the humanitarian catastrophe in SudanAmendment200 for, 384 against, 6 abstained Rejected For 34 %r · shared0.96 501 voters
9 Sept 2025Amendment 15, adding text after paragraph 63 Public procurementAmendment219 for, 423 against, 6 abstained Rejected For 34 %Requested by The Leftr · shared0.95 532 voters
Show 7 more
Result: for–against–abstained. For: share of the votes cast. Requested by: the groups that asked for a roll call.
DateVoteKindResultForRequested byr · shared
13 Nov 2025Amendment 219 to Article 4 Certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirementsAmendment201 for, 426 against, 11 abstained Rejected For 32 %Requested by The Leftr · shared0.95 533 voters
9 Sept 2025Amendment 16, adding text after paragraph 63 Public procurementAmendment217 for, 419 against, 11 abstained Rejected For 34 %Requested by The Leftr · shared0.95 530 voters
13 Nov 2025Amendment 217 to Article 4 Certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirementsAmendment210 for, 423 against, 4 abstained Rejected For 33 %Requested by The Leftr · shared0.94 531 voters
21 May 2026Amendment 9, adding text after paragraph 21 The need to reduce work-related fatalitiesAmendment160 for, 300 against, 13 abstained Rejected For 34 %Requested by The Leftr · shared0.94 409 voters
21 May 2026Amendment 7, adding text after paragraph 17 The need to reduce work-related fatalitiesAmendment160 for, 296 against, 14 abstained Rejected For 34 %Requested by The Leftr · shared0.94 406 voters
13 Nov 2025Amendment 212 to Article 4 Certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirementsAmendment209 for, 422 against, 6 abstained Rejected For 33 %Requested by The Leftr · shared0.94 531 voters
13 Nov 2025Amendment 196 to Article 4 Certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirementsAmendment202 for, 428 against, 13 abstained Rejected For 31 %Requested by The Leftr · shared0.94 536 voters

How similarity is measured

Compare with another vote

Groups’ lines side by side, and the members who switched between the two votes.

Connections

This vote’s decision, the other votes on it, and related votes.

Show 11 connections: The decision · Other votes on this decision

The decision

Other votes on this decision

See all: Other votes on this decision

Sources & citation

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

Permalink
https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/votes/2026-09-17/197130
Official sources
Data source
Licensed CC BY 4.0.
Retrieved
25 September 2026

Cite as

European Parliament (2026). “Amendment 67, after paragraph 9 — The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders”. Vote, 17 September 2026. votingId 197130, reference 2026/2870(RSP). EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/votes/2026-09-17/197130 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Official sources: Roll-call votes, sitting of 17 September 2026 (European Parliament), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-09-17-RCV_EN.html; Results of votes, sitting of 17 September 2026 (European Parliament), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-09-17-VOT_EN.html. Data: EP Open Data API: vote results of the sitting MTG-PL-2026-09-17, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/meetings/MTG-PL-2026-09-17/vote-results?format=application%2Fld%2Bjson (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX 
@misc{epw-vote-2026-09-17-197130,
  author = {{European Parliament}},
  title = {{Amendment 67, after paragraph 9 — The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders}},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-09-17},
  howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/votes/2026-09-17/197130}},
  url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/votes/2026-09-17/197130},
  urldate = {2026-09-25},
  publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
  note = {Vote. votingId 197130, reference 2026/2870(RSP). Official source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-09-17-RCV\_EN.html, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-09-17-VOT\_EN.html. Data: EP Open Data API: vote results of the sitting MTG-PL-2026-09-17 (CC BY 4.0)}
}