The resolution was adopted with 521 votes in favour, 124 against and 50 abstentions.
Taking the floor ahead of the vote, the spokespersons for the political groups broadly agreed that, for different reasons, the planned international agreement was unnecessary and even dangerous.
Elmar Brok (EPP, DE) said, "This agreement would not have been our first choice of how to approach the issue. We must avoid a split EU and the rights of all EU institutions must be guaranteed".
Roberto Gualtieri (S&D, IT) said, "Our resolution is critical because we could have avoided an intergovernmental system. It is paradoxical that the ink hardly having dried on the six pack, some Member States already want to amend it through an intergovernmental system".
Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE, BE) said, "This intergovernmental agreement is a very dangerous exercise. We must limit its scope to the minimum: to the golden rule. ... Within a maximum of five years all its content needs to be incorporated into the EU treaties".
Daniel Cohn Bendit (Greens/EFA, DE) said, "This international agreement is completely useless - we do not need it. Even the markets are not convinced by it because they want a coherent economic policy. This is not the response the crisis is demanding".
Martin Callanan (ECR, UK) said, "This agreement will do nothing to solve the immediate problems. It has diverted attention and resources away from truly addressing the crisis. The debts of many Member States are unsustainable and they need substantial reform and subsequently devaluation".
Soren Bo Sondergaard (GUE/NGL) said, "We will not achieve stability for the Euro with this agreement and its austerity will not lead to growth. It also strengthens EU integration without asking citizens. We cannot support it.
Nigel Farrage (EFD, UK) said, "Austerity alone will not work. You are driving countries into depression just to save the euro project. Southern countries particularly need to get out of the euro and devalue".
A new treaty with little purpose
The resolution raises doubts as to the necessity of any such intergovernmental agreement, given that its key aims could be better and more effectively achieved through the normal EU system. Moreover, the resolution argues that it is only through the tried and tested normal EU system that a true economic and fiscal union can be achieved.
... and many dangers
The resolution also highlights the potential problems that the new agreement, in its current form, could create. These include compounding the lack of democratic accountability, and the resolution therefore argues that the national parliaments and the European Parliament must be included in all aspects of future economic coordination and governance.
An intergovernmental deal also risks permanently embedding a "two-speed" EU. To prevent this, the resolution says the substance of any such agreement should be incorporated into normal EU law within five years.
Finally, the resolution warns against developing a lopsided approach to dealing with the crisis which places too much emphasis on austerity. The agreement should therefore include commitments by the Member States in favour of a redemption fund, project bonds, a financial transaction tax and a roadmap for stability bonds, it says.
Procedure: Political groups' motion for a resolution