Vox opposed eIDAS 2 in 2024, but backed Chat Control in 2021

Vox rejected the European digital identity in 2024, but voted in favour of Chat Control in 2021

The European Parliament approved the European Digital Identity Framework, known as eIDAS 2, with 335 votes in favour, 190 against and 31 abstentions. Among the groups backing the law were the European People's Party and the Socialists and Democrats. Vox's delegation, part of the Patriots for Europe group, positioned itself in the outright rejection bloc, according to the figures cited by its supporters. The problem is that the European Parliament's voting record remains online, and it does not always match the campaign narrative.

What eIDAS 2 is and why it was voted on in 2024

The eIDAS 2 regulation establishes a common framework for electronic identification across the European Union. The official vote on the European Digital Identity Wallet took place in the Parliament's plenary in early 2024. The project went through with the support of the chamber's largest groups. Vox's MEPs positioned themselves in the outright rejection bloc, according to the version circulating among their supporters. Some argue that this rejection is incompatible with the Buxadé Report, adopted to digitally identify illegal immigration. The argument being made is simple: once the technology to identify some people is in place, the infrastructure to identify everyone is already built. You only need to change the subject of the sentence.

The 2021 vote nobody wants to remember

It was not in 2026, nor in 2024. It was in 2021 that Vox voted in favour of Chat Control, the EU regulation on mass scanning of private communications, according to the voting record. The names appearing in the record are Buxadé, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Hermann Tertsch and Mazaly Aguilar. All in favour. The European Parliament's website keeps the votes accessible, which complicates historical revisionism. Vox has voted against in later rounds, once public pressure became unsustainable. But it did not start out voting no. That nuance is the difference between a party that corrected itself and a party that was never wrong.

The argument of the U-turn and the suspicion of total control

The most repeated defence is that Vox has repeatedly opposed the Chat Control regulation in the most recent debates, aligning itself with the vote against the initial proposal driven by sectors of the European People's Party and the socialists. It has tabled amendments alongside its political group to halt what it considers a system of state surveillance. Against that weighs the argument that the correction came after the damage was done. Some go further and claim that the digital identifier for connecting to the internet will be rolled out globally after a supposed digital pandemic or an outage that leaves the network in the hands of a restricted-access system. That scenario is not backed by evidence and works as a mental framework, not as a verifiable forecast.

The background noise: immigration, votes and internal wear

Beneath the issue lies a broader debate about what voting is for. Some participants argue that digital identity is a minor issue compared with immigration, and that Vox is doing what it can as a counterweight to Spain's PP and PSOE. Another camp holds that small parties only waste votes and that efforts should be pooled. And a third, more acid one, claims that all groups serve the same financial master. The discussion drifts toward the party's internal wear, with reproaches aimed at its leadership for having broken the only party that, according to this thesis, could do something different. The full breakdown of votes, with names and dates, is in the European Parliament's public record. Everyone should draw their own conclusions.

With all this on the table, the question is not whether Vox changed its stance. The question is how many times it can change before its electorate stops believing the story.