Reading time: 5 minutes

The European Parliament will vote today, Thursday, on a non-legislative report entitled “Stock-taking of the European Elections 2024 (reference INI 2025/2012). While presented as a reflection on the conduct of the elections, the text amounts to an attempt by the EU’s political establishment to discredit opposition voices and centralise control over Europe’s democratic processes. While non-legislative reports are not binding, they are used to float ideas and influence the debate  and in this case we can see that the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) are  floating and testing the support they can muster for extremist measures in the future  that are clearly anti-democratic.

Frank Furedi, Executive Director of MCC Brussels said, "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 expresses alarm at the growing strength of Eurosceptic, patriotic, and anti-establishment parties across the Union. Rather than respecting the choices of millions of voters, it dismisses their campaigns as “false” or “foreign-sponsored,” effectively branding legitimate democratic debate as “disinformation.”

This framing undermines free and open political discourse. It reduces complex disagreements about the EU’s future to mere propaganda, delegitimising alternative views and discrediting entire political movements chosen by European citizens.
 

Censorship and Control of Information

The text openly attacks independent platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and its owner Elon Musk, holding them responsible for the spread of what it labels “misinformation.” Such rhetoric is a clear warning sign of Brussels’ intention to extend its reach into media and online platforms to silence dissenting voices.

The push to monopolise “truth” under EU institutions risks eroding press freedom and narrowing the space for open, democratic exchange across Europe.

Dangerous Push for Centralisation

Beyond questions of political discourse, the report proposes a sweeping expansion of Brussels’ authority over elections:

  • Centralised EU voter database: a step towards consolidating control over citizens’ personal data.
  • EU-funded “information campaigns”: thinly veiled propaganda, funded by taxpayers, to promote pro-EU narratives ahead of future elections.
  • Single EU election day and harmonised rules: undermining Member States’ right to run their electoral systems in line with their traditions.
  • Reversal of powers in appointing the Commission President: shifting the balance further towards centralised EU institutions at the expense of national governments.

These measures would drastically weaken Member States’ sovereignty and reduce the diversity of Europe’s democratic traditions.
 

The Wider Implications

Although the report contains sharp attacks on Hungary, the broader danger lies in its ambition to reshape the entire European political landscape. The majority in the European Parliament is using this opportunity to stigmatise political opposition, control information flows, and expand Brussels’ powers at the expense of citizens’ freedoms.

Europe’s strength lies in its diversity. MCC Brussels calls for a return to genuine respect for democracy, sovereignty, and freedom of thought across the continent.

The full report can be found here: REPORT on the stocktaking of the European elections 2024 | A10-0156/2025 | European Parliament

Interesting sections of the report referenced in this press release.

  • Hungary attack
    • Paragraph 6: “elections to Parliament might not have been fair in Hungary”
  • Concerned about EU critical voices
    • Paragraph 16: “economic stagnation where long-term disparities intensify support for Eurosceptic parties”
    • Paragraph 22: “concerned by the rise and electoral success of anti-system and openly anti-EU parties”
  • EU critical voices spread disinfo etc
    • Paragraph 17: “candidates… campaigned on false and foreign-sponsored narratives about the EU while drumming up anti-EU sentiment”
    • Paragraph 18: “some Member States’ governments are actively contributing to the dissemination of disinformation”
  • Musk/X/Social media attack
    • Recital N: “social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and its owner Elon Musk continue to openly defy EU regulatory authorities through company policy and communications”
    • Paragraph 19: “concern that online platforms exert disproportionate influence over public discourse…politically motivated decisions by certain platforms”
  • Centralised EU database
    • Recital J: “whereas in the absence of a centralised European voter register, data exchange among Member States on possible multiple entries remains a challenge”
    • While arguably not a direct call to create a central EU database of voters, why would they even say it if they didn’t want it?
  • EU funded information campaigns
    • Paragraph 3: “calls for further substantial investment to expand the reach of these campaigns and broadcasts for the 2029 elections”
    • Paragraph 4: “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”
  • Single EU election day and harmonised rules
    • Paragraph 8: “including through a single common voting day as well as a uniform minimum voting age”
    • Recital F: “collection of data pertaining to the European elections should be further harmonised”
  • Reversal of powers in appointing the Commission President
    • Paragraph 14: “highlights its proposal to reverse the roles of the Council and Parliament in the nomination and confirmation of the President of the Commission”