The European Parliament voted on Thursday, September 11th, on a non-legislative report titled “Stock-taking of the European Elections 2024” (reference INI 2025/2012). While presented as a reflection on the conduct of the elections, the text is an attempt by the EU’s political establishment to discredit opposition voices and centralise control over Europe’s democratic processes.
The vote first rejected the proposed replacement resolution initiated by the Patriots for Europe (PfE) party and went ahead with the original text. The vote passed the original text with 388 voting for, 186 against and 34 absentees.
Although non-legislative reports are not binding, they are often used to float ideas and influence debate. In this case, the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) is clearly testing the waters for support of such anti-democratic measures that could be used in the future.
Frank Füredi, Executive Director of MCC Brussels, warned:
This vote is a warning to all Europeans: democracy cannot be reduced to a single, centralised vision. Respect for national sovereignty, pluralism, and the free exchange of ideas is essential to Europe’s future. Attempts to brand opposition movements as illegitimate or “foreign-sponsored” threaten to erode trust in democracy itself. A healthy Union must welcome—not suppress—the full spectrum of political voices chosen by its citizens.
The report singles out Hungary directly, stating that “elections to Parliament might not have been fair in Hungary.” More broadly, it frames the political climate in terms of economic stagnation, claiming that “long-term disparities intensify support for Eurosceptic parties.” It goes on to express explicit alarm, noting that it is “concerned by the rise and electoral success of anti-system and openly anti-EU parties.”
Rather than acknowledging the democratic choices of millions of citizens, the text dismisses dissenting voices by asserting that “candidates … campaigned on false and foreign-sponsored narratives about the EU while drumming up anti-EU sentiment.” It further alleges that “some Member States’ governments are actively contributing to the dissemination of disinformation.”
These formulations reduce legitimate political disagreement to little more than propaganda, critics argue, undermining open discourse about the EU’s future. For observers, this is a clear sign of Brussels’ intent to expand its control over online platforms and narrow the space for dissenting voices. The EU has been in a long fight for total control over the European narrative and monopolizing the ‘truth’ over any legitimately elected government. Challenging this push is a quick way for a country to find themselves with EU funds withdrawn and multiple investigations launched in many unfounded cases, as happened in Hungary, Poland, or Slovakia.
Apart from issues of political narrative, the report proposes measures that would drastically curtail the sovereignty of member states and call for a major expansion of Brussels’ control over elections. The plans include the creation of a centralized EU voter database, which the report describes as a call to “further harmonize the collection of data pertaining to the European elections.”
Further escalating concerns over centralized control are proposals for extensive EU-funded information campaigns. The report explicitly “calls for further substantial investment to expand the reach of these campaigns and broadcasts for the 2029 elections,” arguing that this effort “requires a cultural shift on the basis of a long-term strategy and adequate resources for the strengthening of European awareness and citizenship, in close cooperation with civil society and societal stakeholders.” This is essentially taxpayer-financed propaganda mandated by Brussels.
The report also champions the introduction of a single EU election day with harmonised rules, including “a single common voting day as well as a uniform minimum voting age,” a move that would override the distinct electoral traditions of individual nations.
Perhaps the most significant power shift proposed concerns the reversal of powers in appointing the Commission President. The document “highlights its proposal to reverse the roles of the Council and Parliament in the nomination and confirmation of the President of the Commission,” a change that would further shift influence from national governments towards EU institutions.
While the report contains pointed criticisms of Hungary, its broader ambitions are seen as a fundamental reshaping of Europe’s political landscape. The measures would weaken national sovereignty, diminish democratic diversity, and allow the parliamentary majority to stigmatize opposition and expand Brussels’ power at the expense of citizens’ freedoms.
