All that was said in the Maastricht Debate for EU Democracy

By Carlo Civitarese, 12 minutes.

Maastricht set the stage for the 2024 Elections for the European Parliament. Eight Spitzenkandidaten have started their election campaigns for their European parties and faced off in a fierce debate. All eyes lie on the current Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, seeking re-election for another five year term. Yet, candidates from the far left to the far right were convinced that they can halt her quest and swing the vote in their favour.  Heated Topics on Foreign and Defence Policy, EU Democracy and Climate Change will decide who will lead Europe in this time of instability and change. 

First, the candidates presented in the opening statement their general remarks. Then, the moderators had one general question prepared. Candidates challenged the answers of their opponents and topic specific discussions erupted. Lastly, one specific question from the audience was asked.

For the part of EU Democracy, the candidates were asked to present their views on how to foster democratic governance while addressing challenges to the EU’s transparency and legitimacy. The three threats to democracy that needed to be discussed were summarized as: foreign interference, pressure on the rule of law and dangers of new technology.

First of all, regarding foreign interference, Schmit was asked how the European Socialists were to regain the trust of voters following allegations of corruption among the party. He responded that all persons involved in this “special case” have been excluded, before shifting the focus to Visiten’s Identity and Democracy party. He stated that far right parties are directly and systematically funded by Putin. Von Der Leyen agreed with him, also referencing to Visiten and his party as “proxies of Putin” that “try to destroy the EU from within”, stating that they are the real problem from which the EU should not be distracted.

Answering a jolly question from Eickhout, she recalled past instances regarding Poland and Hungary in which the EU froze funds to countries breaching the rule of law, stating that these are methods with which the EU will continue to deal with the extreme right. Accordingly, Von Der Leyen then promised to only work with the European Conservatives and Reformists if its MEPs (eurosceptic more often than not) do not negatively affect the parliament’s composition and comply with EU standards for democratic governance.

This seemed to strike a negative chord with most candidates, including Zimmerman and Schmit, who felt that it was improper to justify working with a party they deem undemocratic on the basis of who is representing said party in a specific moment. Before the debate moved on to questions of democratic security related to new technologies, Visiten defended his views as democratic, while accusing Schmit and the socialists of having double standards on who they choose to cooperate with.

The next topic was related to new AIs: a question was asked to Green’s Baier regarding the speed of introduction of the new text-to-video AI model, Zora. He stressed the importance of acting with care when dealing with Artificial Intelligence, and expressed his disappointment towards the Union’s recent AI acts, which he described as incomplete and full of loopholes. Von Der Leyen defended the act, praising its capability to enable openness towards the “immense possibilities”' that AI innovation can provide. She also again recalled provisions such as the Digital Market Act that try to ensure social media platforms taking responsibility for the content they provide, as well as limiting market gatekeeping from big companies. Finally, after Von Der Leyen defended her deal with Pfeizer regarding the COVID vaccines, by stating that the agreement of all member states ensured said deal’s transparency, the topic of rule of law was put forward.

Zimmerman affirmed that domestic rule of law issues affect the whole union; consequently she called for strong sanctions on Hungary, calling for the suspension of its right to vote. Roßberg added that to strengthen the rule of law, the European Parliament needs to be reformed in such a way that would provide it with the right to act on legislative proposals, not only react to Commission initiatives. This reform, she maintained, would be accompanied by an enhancement to the Committee of the Regions in order to improve the Union’s input legitimacy. Visiten added that enlarging the EU to “undemocratic countries” constitutes a threat to the rule of law. Lastly, Christian Movement’s Ghiletchi stressed the importance of European Justice institutions in maintaining a stable rule of law.

Ultimately, the debate on democracy left a lot to be desired. A large part of  it was occupied by the candidates accusing of corruption and defending themselves from allegations of corruption, or recalling already existing legislations by either applauding their effects or criticizing their shortcomings. This time could have been better spent addressing the EU’s well-documented democratic deficit and looking ahead at possible reforms to bridge the legitimacy and transparency gap. While some interesting points were made, most of the discussion appeared lackluster and off-topic.