undefined

points

[-]

European parliament parties are really not particularly cohesive, and the EPP in particular is a bit of a random mess; it is _broadly_ liberal-conservative and pro-European, but its membership is a bit all over the place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party#Full...

Note that in some countries it has _both ruling coalition and opposition_ member parties.

by cluckindan6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

EPP is the predominant christian nationalist party.

by rsynnott5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Eh, I wouldn't say that's true. It has a lot of "Christian democratic" parties (the likes of CDU/CSU), and also a bunch of 'liberal-conservative' parties (there's a fair bit of crossover). However, it's pro-Europe, and certainly not particularly nationalist. Nationalists (at least ethnoreligious nationalists; leftist nationalists like Sinn Fein go elsewhere) would largely be in ECR, the absurdly-named 'Patriots.eu', ESN.

by whywhywhywhy8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

There’s often large differences between what politicians tell you they are and how they vote once in power

by pqtyw8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't quite get what you mean? EPP is technically in power (whatever that means in the European Parliament). But also why would that matter? Or they wanted to force a vote just so they could vote against it (which is not necessarily a stupid strategy in cases like this)?

by whywhywhywhy8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> in power (whatever that means in the European Parliament).

It means the people who get to vote on if you have a right to privacy or not.

by SiempreViernes8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

So what happened previously is that the parliament accepted a modified text for an extension of "chat control 1.0", the conservatives didn't like that draft so they managed to get a redo of the vote on the amendments.

It seems this second time around amendment votes produced a final draft that the parliament as a whole found unacceptable, which apparently includes the majority of the EPP.

You can see the outcome of the individual amendment votes here, starting on page 15: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-03-...

and what the actual amendments were here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AM-784377...

It is however quite tedious to go trough this to figure out what the final draft text was that then lead to the outright rejection.

From the tweet, it seems tuta is implying it was the vote in favour of amendment 34 that killed the extension; I guess that's possible but certainly not obvious from the amendment text:

> Reports on the 1325% increase in generative AI produced child sexual material requires voluntary detection to be calibrated to distinguish artificial material and avoid diverting resources from victims in immediate danger. Such measures should prevent the revictimization of children through AI models, while ensuring that this technological development does not justify general monitoring, a relaxation of privacy standards, or the weakening of end-to-end encryption.