European Parliament calls for assessing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group

European Parliament calls for assessing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group

What exactly did the European Parliament vote on? It is not a ban: it is a non-binding resolution calling on the Council to assess and add entities and individuals linked to the Muslim Brotherhood to the EU's list of terrorist organisations. The text passed with 381 votes in favour and 167 against, according to the breakdown circulating. The difference between "calling for" and "deciding" is the whole story, and hardly anyone is telling it.

What it means when the European Parliament passes a non-binding resolution

The European Parliament has no power to place anyone on the EU's terrorist list. That authority belongs to the Council, which decides by unanimity or qualified majority depending on the applicable regime. What the Parliament has done is make a political declaration: it urges the Council to act. Anyone reading "the EU declares the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists" is getting the wrong institution and the wrong instrument.

The figure, though, is striking. 381 MEPs in favour versus 167 against is neither a technical tie nor a narrow majority. It is a sign that consensus in the chamber has shifted. The interesting question is not who won, but who lost and with what arguments.

Who voted against and why

Spain's left is in the spotlight. Some claim that the European socialists and the left to the left of the PSOE (Spain's Socialist Party) voted against, although the nominal breakdown is not settled in the available material. What is documented are the subsequent statements: Jaume Asens (Sumar) compared the Muslim Brotherhood with Opus Dei, and Juan Fernando López Aguilar (PSOE) warned that anyone wanting to stigmatise people for their faith "will find us in front of them, as we were when the Nancy went after the Jews".

The comparison with Opus Dei has an elementary problem: Opus Dei is not a political party, has never led insurrections and is not linked to the genealogy of international terrorism. One of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood influenced Zawahiri, according to the historical reconstruction cited. Comparing a religious order with an organisation that has a political wing and an armed wing is not a nuance, it is a different category altogether.

The Sortu precedent and the suspicion of double standards

The comparison with the Basque case comes up quickly. Herri Batasuna was banned, then came Sortu, and later EH Bildu. The suspicion that the bar is applied unevenly depending on who is on the other side runs through much of the discontent. It is not a settled legal argument, but it is a political intuition that explains why the resolution has gone down well across a broad spectrum.

In parallel, some recall that when more than 400 MEPs voted in favour of the deportation centres, the left blamed the far right. Now, with an even larger majority, the label being thrown around is Sarracinophobia. The narrative changes depending on the outcome.

What the text does not say

The resolution bans nothing, closes no mosques, expels no one and does not change the legal status of any specific entity. It opens an assessment process. The Council may take months, may add no one, or may add only part of the list. Anyone claiming that "the EU has already banned the Muslim Brotherhood" is jumping ahead to a result that does not exist.

And there lies the subtle irony: a vote that changes nothing legally has changed the political map quite a bit. Majorities shift in resolutions before they do in regulations. When the regulation arrives, if it arrives, the debate will already have been settled.