Strasbourg votes 381 to 167 against the Brotherhood, and can list no one
The European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution on 8 October calling for Brotherhood-linked individuals and organisations to be considered for the EU terrorist list. The power to do that sits with the Council, by unanimity, on the basis of a national authority’s decision that no member state has yet produced.
The resolution, tabled as B10-0424/2026 and adopted as P10_TA(2026)0342, passed in plenary by 381 votes to 167 with 15 abstentions — 563 cast. It asks member states to consider adding individuals and organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood to the EU’s common terrorist list, and calls for tighter scrutiny of EU expenditure to stop funds reaching Islamist organisations. The text condemns a “strategy of Islamist entryism aimed at weakening democratic institutions across EU Member States” and characterises that entryism as “covert and malicious interference” directed at democratic institutions, the rule of law and the neutrality of public institutions. The initiative was spearheaded by the French EPP member Céline Imart. Al Arabiya English reports the text was submitted by the EPP and carried with far-right, conservative and some liberal support, with left-wing groups opposed from the outset; Hungarian Conservative describes a majority running from Renew through EPP, ECR, PfE and ESN.
The gap between what was voted and what can follow is the whole story. The EU terrorist list is set by the Council, acting by unanimity, on the basis of a decision by a competent national authority — a prosecutor, an investigating judge, an administrative body. Parliament cannot list anyone, and nothing in the file shows a member state has produced such a decision. France’s National Assembly adopted resolution T.A. n° 215 on 22 January 2026 calling on the Commission to open a listing procedure; the Dutch House approved a PVV motion to ban the group on 18 March 2026. Both are parliamentary expressions, not administrative acts. The ECR group, welcoming the vote, said it “now expects the Commission and the Council to follow up” — the most precise statement in the file of what the sponsors think happens next, and an admission that nothing has happened yet.
Assessment: Read the headlines against the procedure. Several outlets covering 8 October, including the Jerusalem Post, used language of proscription for a text that proscribes nothing; the Middle East Forum went further and wrote that Parliament “expels” FEMYSO, a characterisation we could not corroborate and will not repeat — a resolution cannot expel an NGO. The measurable thing this week produced is a number and a document reference. Of at least seven discrete legislative actions against the Brotherhood across five jurisdictions since April 2025, four are non-binding parliamentary expressions. The question that decides whether 8 October mattered is which member state files an administrative decision first, and as of today none has. FEMYSO, named in the text, has not been heard from in this file. A vote that names an organisation is not finished reporting until the organisation answers.