namesyoushouldknow.lol
Every person in the main index has at least one recorded direct vote for an authorising or extension text, including explicit duration amendments. Mixed and later opposing votes are shown, not hidden.
The ballot target controls the meaning. Voting against an extension is opposition. Voting against a proposal to reject only kept the file alive and is displayed as process context; never as a direct vote for the law. Voting for rejection is displayed as opposition.
Work in progress. This page parses public European Parliament vote data. Automated and manual classifications may contain errors. Check each linked official source, the exact ballot target, and the recorded position before relying on or publishing the information. This is not an official European Parliament resource or legal advice.
Audited vote-by-vote index
Complete four-way positions for 11 plenary roll calls, including both distinct ballots on 9 July 2026.
Member states
Select a flag to filter the index. Select it again to clear.Structured rules, not word matching.
Main-list inclusion. A person needs at least one direct-support vote on a reviewed final enactment or co-legislator deal whose core effect authorises or extends the regime. Raw FOR or AGAINST never qualifies by itself.
Restrictions and safeguards. A FOR vote on a shortening amendment, last-resort condition, encryption protection, narrower scope, deletion, safeguard, or technical correction is context only. It cannot qualify anyone as pro-Chat Control. Amendment 3 shortened the proposed 2028 end date to August 2027; Amendment 29 only corrected a paragraph reference. Neither counts.
Rejection motions. FOR means the member supported rejection and opposed the underlying file. AGAINST means the member opposed rejection and kept the file alive; that is a process effect only, not an affirmative vote for the law.
Counter-votes. Full FOR, AGAINST, abstention, and did-not-vote positions are embedded for 11 mapped plenary roll calls. Committee records retain published selected-side lists, so absence of an opposing committee record is not proof that none occurred.
HowTheyVote links. Every plenary roll-call entry links to its exact HowTheyVote vote page. Committee entries link to HowTheyVote's coverage explanation because HowTheyVote does not publish committee votes; the official Parliament committee source remains attached.
Recorded versus intended votes. The index follows the announced roll call. Later declarations of intended vote do not silently overwrite what was recorded.
Read the complete record.
Independence. This is an independent public-record index, not an official Parliament publication and not affiliated with any listed person or political group.
Meaning of appearance. Appearance means at least one direct support vote under the rules above. Privacy-restricting, safeguard, shortening, and technical votes cannot create an appearance. Appearance does not establish motive, support for every version, support for indiscriminate scanning, or a current position.
Scope. “Chat Control” is political shorthand. Each entry identifies whether the vote concerns the temporary voluntary derogation (1.0) or the permanent CSA Regulation file (2.0), and links the motion and sources.
Accuracy. Public records can be corrected or updated. Inspect the exact target, raw position, effect explanation, and linked source before drawing or publishing conclusions.
Mirror this site
This self-contained page includes the audited dataset and direction rules. When online, the button requests the latest public copy without cookies, credentials, a referrer, or a request body. If unavailable, it saves the copy already open.