Voting on EP elections: Young people’s opinions during the Maastricht Debate

By Tillie Morris and Carlo Citivarese, 8 minutes

Organised by Politico, the Maastricht debate was held on the 29th of April, and they invited seven candidates who are running for the position of European Commission president. The candidates had the opportunity to share their positions on three topics, climate change, foreign and security policy, and EU democracy chosen by young people through a Maastricht University survey. A focus of the event was to include young people in EU politics, which was evident as many student and youth-oriented associations, such as ECA, the European Youth Parliament and Studio Europa were invited to the event.

To investigate young people's opinions on voting in European Parliament elections, and overall impressions of the debate, we interviewed a number of individuals at the open-air viewing party taking place in Vrijthof. The screening party included live music, food stands and theatrical performances. A series of interviews were conducted before and after the debate took place.

It must be considered that the people interviewed were already aware of the significance of the EP elections, seeing as most were academically or professionally involved with the European sphere. However, not many were aware of who the candidates were and which party they represented, with the exception of the current Commission President, Ursual von der Leyen. One interviewee was in attendance to represent the European Youth Parliament, while two more were based in Brussels working as policy advisors in the EU. Additionally, most other young people were undertaking a bachelors in either European Studies or European Law.

Although the 2019 European Parliament elections saw the highest turnout since 1994 with 50.6%, impressions that the EU elections are not as important as national elections are still prevalent. In 2019, youth participation rose by 50% compared to 2014, so we wanted to hear what young people had to say about the elections, and if they felt the general public was given sufficient knowledge from national governments to vote.

European elections have often been viewed as a second order to national elections, not least due to the complex procedure involving national parties, political groups, and spitzenkandidat. This tendency could negatively affect voter turnout. When asked why attendees believed there is a low voter turnout for European elections, an overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that there is a lack of communication from their respective governments (Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Cyprus, and France) concerning:

1. The voting procedure

2. Impacts of their votes on the relationship between EP and Commission

3.Voting when residing in another member state.

However, the Dutch government was highlighted by some interviewees as having effective communication via social media, with one interviewee saying, “It's effective if you know where to look”. Partly agreeing with this statement, one respondent argued that the EU sufficiently communicates its positions, but that national governments do not cooperate enough to ensure that they reach the general public.

Another reason that was highlighted by interviewees as a possible cause for low voter turnout was lack of education. Respondents agreed that the role of schools in educating young people about the European Union and its competencies must be improved. National curriculums may have fallen behind the times regarding the sensibilisation of the EU’s roles and functions, especially since EU policies affect more aspects of daily life than ever before; deeper education would foster the creation of stronger connections between member state demoi. Likewise, one interviewee mentioned the lack of a strong link between citizens and European institutions as a potential cause for relatively low voter turnout.

Following the conclusion of the debate, the focus of our interviews shifted to the topics of discussion, as well as the impressions people got from the answers given by each candidate. Current Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is running for re-election and was the most well-known candidate present at the debate. One interviewee reflected that Von der Leyen appeared to be a true leader in comparison to the other candidates, and overall people resonated with her position and believed she was consistent throughout the duration of the debate. These views appeared to be corroborated with a poll conducted by Politico prior to the debate, that saw Von der Leyen polling highest for popularity. However, after the discussion had ended, the same poll was re-conducted and saw the Green’s Bas Eickhout in the top position. Multiple interviewees highlighted that many of the policies and points brought up by Eikhout throughout the debate, especially concerning climate change, were very well received. Following on, it was worth noting that people that positively commented on Von der Leyen did not discuss the European People’s Party, whereas supporters of Bas Eickhout also on many showed appreciations for the Greens/ European Free Alliance.

However, the debate was constrained to 90 minutes which left some interviewees feeling that certain issues were not discussed in a satisfactory way. One respondent felt that no party had a clear answer to the migration issue, furthermore, discussion on Israel-Palestine was not given sufficient time, and the responses from some candidates was “lackluster”. Issues such as the circular economy, wages, and the housing crisis were highlighted as key topics in the EU that were not addressed during the debate.

Overall, the debate was positively received by interviewees claiming that it was constructive and informative: events such as these can help mobilise voters and inform people on European governance. The Maastricht Debate was attended by many young people and it promotes engagement by citizens with the EU which is of increasing importance, and many interviewees hoped to see similar events in Maastricht again.