By: María Miralles i Viu

The European parliamentary elections of 2024. Dreaded by some, anticipated by others, but indifferent to the large majority, especially the younger generation. The situation is so desperate that the executive branch of the European Union, the European Commission, went as far as calling on world-known pop star Taylor Swift to mobilise the young voters. It might seem like a joke, but last September, the multiple-time Grammy winner posted a message to her 272 million Instagram followers, encouraging them to register to vote and within hours Vote.org reported more than 35,000 registrations, 23 percent more than last year.

But why does the EU youth feel so alienated from their political environment? Euroskepticism takes several forms, but one of the most common is the desacreditation of the EU institutions by Member States’ leaders like Viktor Orbán, who once stated that “Globalists can go to hell” or compared the EU to an old boxing champion, showing off its belts but no longer willing to go into the ring. Another example is Giorgia Meloni, who during her campaign promised to clash with the EU over budget issues, despite toning it down after taking office. To these eurosceptic allegations, the EU has responded with a general message of “trust the EU”. Just a quick search through the EU institutions’ social media platforms and websites shows an extensive campaign promoting the good deeds of the Union. Passenger rights, protecting personal data, ensuring working hours, product standards, supports Ukraine, sends vaccines to Africa… The EU takes care of its citizens and supports the fair and just causes.

But is something morally “good” because the EU approves it or is it approved by the EU because it’s morally “good”? Let’s take the Israel-Hamas conflict as an example. EU Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen faced backlash over her unwavering and unconditional support to Israel when Hamas attacked the country, instigating several Member State leaders, who alleged that it isn’t within the Von der Leyen’s competencies to establish foreign policy away from the line conveyed . As explained by Iratxe García, the leader of the Socialists and Democrats, “Both Ursula von der Leyen and Roberta Metsola were right to show Europe’s solidarity and absolute condemnation for Hamas’ terrorist attacks. […] However, as chief representatives of the EU and its institutions, they had the duty to represent the position of the Union as a whole including its Member States. With their visit to Israel they failed, upholding an unacceptable bias that can only cause harm.” Moreover, when faced with this criticism, she and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz exposed their country’s history with Israel and waved it as an argument as to why Von der Leyen could not have said anything else but what she said. Scholz went as far as to state that “Israel’s security was a matter of state.” So should the average European citizen trust/believe the EU that supports Israel’s response, or the EU that voiced the critique against Israel’s actions in Gaza? Both approaches are valid taking into account that both points of view are voiced by referents in the field. This difference and confrontation within the institutions cultivates mistrust in the Union and thus making it easy for eurosceptics to push their views.

And talking about euroskepticism, let’s talk about Brexit. Let us not forget one of the most sound arguments wielded during the campaign; EU membership fees. Member States pay an agreed fee based on their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the size of the VAT base. The biggest contributor as of now is Germany with more than 33 billion euros, and the smallest is Malta at 150 million euros. These funds go to every project funded by the EU, covering many programs from peace keeping missions outside the continent or humanitarian aid (€2.4 billion Humanitarian budget in 2021), to regional development and educational scholarships. Aside from these projects, the EU also runs on a sort of ‘redistribution of wealth’ system; A Member State contributes to the overall budget and in exchange they receive funds for specific projects. For instance, the Czech Republic in 2022 contributed 66.5 bullion Czech crowns and received 117.4 billion Czech crowns. This ‘forced’ contribution has been questioned by eurosceptics across Europe and has even been compared to forced labour by the most extreme. In this particular case, certain citizens drawn to euroscepticism tend to feel ‘scammed’ out of their money. They fail to see how the daily advantages the EU provides are by far enough to outweigh contributing financially to its budget. In the case of Andrej Danko’s Slovakia, he has voiced discontent with financially contributing to EU funded projects neverminding the fact that his country is one of the greates beneficiaries of European funds, more specifically a total of 20EUR per person every month and an additional 40EUR in returns on investment, not to mention that joining the EU lifted the Slovak GDP by more than 15%. 

Having exposed two problems the EU faces in the mobilisation of young voters (these being contradicting public statements and economic concerns), I would now like to offer a solution of my own thought. To the first problem, critical thought is encouraged. Von der Leyen had the right to express her opinion on the matter, even if not in behalf of the entire European Union. I believe she made a mistake and irresponsibly chose the wrong time and setting, but she didn’t break the law. Leaders are not perfect, that is why critical thinking is key. To the second problem, I believe that the Union should put more effort into spreading correct information. Freezing Hungary’s funds is a step, but it doesn’t really target the people spreading misleading propaganda. Rather, it harms the civilians who should be benefiting from them. And last but not least, for the taxation issue, I believe that EU membership, however expensive it might be, benefits first and foremost the people who need it; citizens. And it’s thus it is not only Member States’ advisable option, but moral duty to choose it. As a last thought on this paragraph I would like to add that I don’t believe the EU does enough to emphasize how much it impacts the life of its citizens, especially the youth. Erasmus programs, scholarships, EU solidarity corps, Bluebook traineeships… The European Union is the perfect setting for the younger generation to develop academically, professionally and personally, and it does not give itself enough credit for that.