(12 June 2024 – The Press Club Brussels)
Speakers:
- Carlo Giovanni Giudice (Volt Belgium)
- Nikolas Kockelmann (JEF Belgium)
Moderator:
- Laura Leger, C4EP
C4EP has organised a more informal, roundtable-like event to evaluate not only the results of the EP elections, but also to take a look at the opportunities of politically active and interested youth to participate in European politics, either by activism or by gaining positions and influence within the existing political infrastructure. The invited speakers – two individuals from active youth communities – and the audience have engaged in a highly informative and entertaining exchange of opinions and ideas in the framework of this event, hosted by the Press Club, Brussels, just a few days after the elections, when the campaign guns have already become silent, but the smoke and the mist still has not evaporated from the field.
Volt managed to get two seats in the Netherlands and three in Germany. The party employed a brave awareness-raising campaign “Don’t be an asshole – your vote against right wing extremists”. This did not only aim to encourage people to vote against far-right parties, but also to overall vote. And as people do not want to be considered assholes, the tactic might have just worked: the turnout in Germany went slightly up from 61,38% in 2019 to 64,78% in 2024.
One of the first subjects was the rise of the far-right, particularly visible in France and Germany. The first question directed to our guests was about being concerned about the emergence of a new “Brexit” sentiment? What about federalism? Nikolas has expressed his opinion that federalism is not just an aim, but also a way to go down a road. He reminded that the EU will not turn federal overnight, but it could slowly incorporate more and more federal elements into its structure. Although, with far-right parties on the rise, who oppose federalism, this might be now even harder than before. The validity of statement is being proven by the fact that since the event, the far-right political parties, led by the German AfD has initiated to create a new group in the EP under the name “Sovereignists”.
Another question targeted the influence of the “TikTok generation” in politics. Recently we have seen politicians like Bardella using TikTok for campaigning, along with others like Coner Rousseau from the socialists or the president of the Vlaams Belang here in Belgium. The results of the EP elections have also shown other successful candidates previously being active on that app – and while TikTok has informative content, there is also a rise in populist content on it. The guests were asked about the impact of these platforms, together with Instagram being a major source of information for young people. One of the questions was if they see any issues with that. The guests have drawn the attention that TikTok and social media help small parties such as Volt too, because they do not need to spend much money on these platforms, but they can still reach a wide audience via those. Speakers also agreed that the ban of TikTok would not solve any problem, and would not be democratic either. While Nikolas Kockelmann explained that regulating platforms was a necessary challenge, Carlo Giovanni cited an example from Volt’s campaign. Volt utilized the “simple” codes of social media, running a straightforward campaign – about trains – that proved to be highly effective. Volt’s success demonstrates how straightforward messaging, aligned with the familiar formats of social media, can effectively convey important issues and mobilize support. There was a consensus among those present, that as the far-right uses social media, the left could also do the same, to level up their communication. These platforms are crucial to reach young people, e.g. to raise the level of participation in public affairs.
Talking about participation, the guests have taken a look on voter turnout, including the proportion of youth. The average voter turnout in Europe is around 50%. Belgium leads with an 80% turnout (but here the compulsory voting clearly has an important effect), while Croatia lags behind at around 20%. We have asked our participants about this low participation signalling a problem of interest, or is there another reason? It’s crucial to recognize that this low vote is not just a matter of divergent interests but also a lack of understanding or a sense of rejection from the complex European system. The functioning of the EU, with its multiple levels of decision-making and regulation, can seem opaque and disconnected from the daily concerns of citizens, fueling skepticis.
This has stirred up a bit of a debate: some members of the audience argued that mandatory voting is needed, but not everyone agreed. Speakers highlighted the fact that during compulsory voting, some people still do not have an actual knowledge of the parties and choose according to their mood or what they had read the day before which does not contribute to a more balanced result. An audience member (coming from Romania) assumed that people need a disaster, a special or extraordinary event to mobilize them, otherwise they do not think there is such a big problem. She has brought an actual example to support her view. This statement has met with agreement from the majority of those present.
A delicate subject covered by the guests was what to tell people who say that the European project goes against their interests? The first problem: is that really the case? How to communicate the complex problem of clearly acknowledging the mistakes of the EU to understand why there is this desillusion and absence of interest, but at the same time trying to keep those people on the constructive side of the debate. In this context, some audience members have mentioned cases such as farmers in Europe or automobile manufacturers in Germany to illustrate how certain EU decisions do not always work effectively for the affected populations. These examples highlight broader issues of rejection and misunderstanding of the EU system.
The event has addressed many other interesting and thought-provoking questions: How can we communicate with young far-right voters? What do we say to them – apart from maybe understanding why they vote this way – but it is still wrong. But what do we tell them? Why is Europe not reaching out to them? Should it at all? All these have generated debate and sometimes entertaining interventions from those who were present. To bridge this gap, especially when dealing with far-right voters who are often critical of the EU, it’s important not to fall into disdain or condescension. As members of the “European bubble,” we need to make an effort to understand the sources of this disaffection. This involves engaging in open dialogue, making the workings of the EU more transparent, and tangibly demonstrating the concrete benefits of European policies for ordinary citizens. Moreover, this raises the question of potential reforms to simplify procedures and improve communication between European institutions and citizens.
You can find some more photos and information on our social media pages: