European Parliament election is quickly approaching. On May 22nd till 25th, 2014 European citizens will cast their vote to decide about their representation in the European Parliament. Direct election into the European Parliament was firstly launched in 1979 and since then every European citizen have a right to vote in these elections.

AEGEEDebate is very happy to cooperate with Y Vote 2014 project in this debate. Some time ago, the project published the article about the rules of European elections and differences among Member states. Here you can find the article.

So, what is the problem and why is it worthy to hold the debate about the topic? There is one paradox in the EU constituency. Since 1979 there have been single European elections, but the rules of the elections are in competences of nation states. This caused the national character of European elections. In fact, the only relevant similarity is the format of elections – proportional election system. Other relevant characteristics of election are different – the nature of list of candidates, election thresholds or the size of national constituency. The question, therefore, is if we really need one pan-European elections or current system produces sufficient results in the representation of the European parliament.

To solve this problem, AEGEEDebate invites two talented speakers into the debate. Armenak, Policy Officer of AEGEE-Europe on European Integration, argues that right to vote should be consistent and same for every European citizen, thus granting their equal opportunities within Member states and that real pan-European election empowers the democratic process of the EU. On the other hand, Wieke, from AEGEE-Leuven, counters with the argument that harmonization of rules into European elections does not influence the representation of the European Parliament. She refutes the importance of age harmonization and calls for stronger role of media and link between the Parliament and the European Commission Presidency. Both speakers have presented their points. Now it is up to you to decide who has got more persuasive points. Feel free to vote below the opinions and comment your thoughts about the debate.

Affirmative speaker: Armenak Minasyants (AEGEE-Yerevan)

Opposition speaker: Wieke van der Kroef (AEGEE-Leuven)

Moderator of the debate: Ivan Bielik

Defending the motion

Armenak Minasyants, member of AEGEE-Yerevan; Policy Officer for European Neighbourhood Policy.

The EU has achieved numerous achievements in the fields of good governance, democracy, rule of law, protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, economic competitiveness and joint monetary union; however we still witness the differences between the national rules and procedures on the participation in the EP elections, which directly harm the EU citizen’s right to vote. In the modern world the individuals’ right to vote and participate in the democratic processes is considered to be one of the biggest cornerstones of our societies.

With no debate, by its legal essence, the right to vote is a right and not a privilege. Meanwhile, in my belief the right to vote is not an absolute – conditions can be imposed as long as they pursue a legitimate and constitutional aim, are proportionate and do not damage the other political and civil rights of the citizens. The conditions for limitation of the right to vote may be set on such criteria as minimum age requirements and, in some circumstances, residency, but such restrictions cannot impair the very essence of the right to vote.

Each EU member state is allowed to develop its legislation and policy in this field, which in my belief is strongly putting in danger the idea of the general pan-European elections itself. The EP elections are a unique possibility for the EU citizens to cast their votes in favor of the European project, to have their say in the ongoing political debates, however in several cases the EU citizens are simply deprived of their possibility to exercise their right to vote and become an integral part of the democratic process. The electoral codes towards the participation in the EP elections are different from the EU member state to state but their main emphasize and aim is to allow the EU citizens to vote and accordingly elect a single European legislative body.

After reading the last 4 words of the previous sentence, a common reader may directly get confused: why the EU citizens should vote for one common legislative body with 28 different legislations and prescribed electoral procedures? The equality between the counterparts is one of the key principles of the EU in its external global policy. However, the idea of equality and solidarity is based first of all on the principle of equality of opportunities of the citizens. In this context the common and harmonized rules on participation in the EP elections seem to be not only logical, but as well as quite grounded from the legal point. Additionally, the harmonized rules may give an additional boost to the elections turmoil, as the EU citizens will be granted with the same identical rights, no matter of their national citizenship or any other criteria.

In complex, I fully support the respective debate’s motion and express sincere hope that the national rules on the participation in EP elections would be harmonized within Member states of the EU in the nearest future.

Opposing the motion

Wieke van der Kroef, member of AEGEE-Leuven; Projects & Working Groups Editor of the AEGEEan Magazine. 

There are differences in rules for participation in the European elections, because the elections follow national procedures similar to other elections within Member States. I will explain why it is unnecessary to focus on harmonizing these rules and how it could even further endanger representativeness of the European Parliament.

First of all, why would we need a harmonisation of national rules on participation within the European Union? If it is to increase voter turnout, there are many different ways to do this that have proven positive results.

Because let’s not forget that the most important difference in those who vote and those who don’t vote is not age, but education. So maybe we need to look at education and people’s understanding of European politics instead of rules on participation. As a young ex-Brazilian explained he learned more about the EU during school in Brazil than in the Netherlands.

Another important factor for voter turnout is the influence and decision-making powers of the EP as well as ensuring that people know European leaders. Therefore the media have an important role in the communication on issues that are important on the European level (instead of continuing to focus only on national debates). And let’s not forget the most efficient way to increase turnout: make voting compulsory.

In any case, the clear appointment of candidates for the Commission Presidency by the European parties and the debates between them are an improvement in these elections. And we can conclude that there are many ways to increase voter turnout and changing the age at which people are able to be elected is not necessarily one of them.

But what about the representation of young people? Don’t we need someone in Parliament who is young if we want to be sure that we are represented? Well… No, not really.

It is not because someone is young that (s)he can better represent your point of view. Slavery was abolished without black people in Parliament and universal suffrage was also accepted without the poor and the workers, the women or black people in Parliament.

So we do not need young people in Parliament, but we do need ways to get our issues on the agenda! But there are other, better ways to influence policy than voting. Like –for example- a requirement for the EU to ask the European Youth Council for input on all policy that concerns youth. This would be so much more effective to get our needs discussed than having a couple of young people split between different European fractions in the EP.

But what about equal rights for EU citizens? Let’s look at the differences and how harmonization will influence the current situation. The only country where you are allowed to vote at 16 is Austria. So realistically, a harmonisation of national rules will lead to an increase in voting age in Austria and not a decrease in the other 27 member states.

The age of running for elections is split almost 50/50 between states that have a minimum at 18 and those who set it higher. So this will lead to endless discussions and if the Parliament and Member States find agreement, it will again be at an age above 18.

Now, let’s conclude, in order to raise voter turnout there are a lot more useful and feasible ways to do this than harmonizing national rules on participation in EP elections. People can be represented by others who are not similar to them and changing national rules can raise the age to vote and run for a position. Harmonisation might equalize rights but not in a way that benefits young people.

So we do not need a harmonisation of national rules on the participation in European elections in order to increase the voice of youth. We need to focus on education on European democracy and the institutionalisation of input by young people on European policy.

It is well known that EU is passing through rough crisis. From all sides you can see red lights, and hear alarms. What can be done?! Austerity is being used, but it can be find as controversial measure if it is observed from different angles, ex. government and populists, or if we try to define austerity, there can be used a wide array of choice, like:

“Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.” (http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=austerity-measure)

„Austerity, forced from the EU level and supported by national governments, cuts are being imposed in nearly every sector that matters to ordinary people. They are cutting welfare benefits, health care, education; privatising our common goods in the name of paying off the debt, dismantling labour and social rights in the name of making our corporations more competitive so our economy can recover.“  (http://foraeuropeanspring.org)

Through the debate, leaded by Ivan and Miguel, we can find out, from one side, Ivan’s affirmative side, that enforcing contract which one side signed is important in order to keep the relevance of the contract itself. Ivan is briefly introducing us with austerity measures, caused by breaking rules of Basic Treaties (founding documents of the EU), whose idea was equal rules of game for all members. Although, if we read opposition’s arguments, Miguel is questioning, how much austerity is adequate. Nevertheless, it is being followed by riots, leading to social unrest and violation of human rights, causing deterioration of democracy.

Of course here we have clash of opinions. While Ivan is defending austerity measures, believing that they correct bad, unsustainable economic policies. On other hand Miguel is against austerity measures, because they, as Miguel says, are just cover for powerful, self-interested people, making situations just worse than it was, convincing citizens that austerity is a way to new economic growth.

It is up to you now; your opinions, your ideas, your critics, they are all more than welcome. Read, think, and decide between your own clash of opinions, where are we going, and where do you want to go. It is the same with the outcome of debate. Who had better and stronger arguments? It’s up to you to decide. Stay active!

Affirmative speaker: Ivan Bielik (Speaker of IPWG)

Opposition speaker: Miguel Gallardo Albajar (Project director of AEGEE-Europe)

Sabiha Kapetanovic, Moderator of the debate.

Defending the motion

Ivan Bielik, AEGEE-Brno and Speaker of IPWG, student of European studies at Masaryk University, Czech Republic.

I do not believe that Europe should abandon its austerity only because people do not like it. The word of “austerity” has already gained negative connotation in European public space. From this standpoint it is quite courageous to defend such measures. In my part I will explain the correcting nature of austerity measures and the importance of enforcing values incorporated in the founding Treaties.

So, firstly, countries targeted by austerity measures do need the incentive to reform their spending. Deficit-run budgets in countries like Greece or Spain could not be sustained at any price. Such economic policies were hazardous for the citizens from long-term point of view. Moreover, such irresponsibility of politicians who run states was blatant. They were not caring about the prospect of the country, but only for their self-interest. Such approach is doomed for Armageddon. These austerity measures are just correcting the situation which was destined to end very badly. Even at the expense of people’s unrest, it is necessary to redefine and correct economic standards in the countries.

Very interesting example is, paradoxically, Germany. In 1990’s Germany was a “sick man of Europe” – country with no growth, no prospect of development or potential. They embrace exactly the same austerity, because they need to change how economic policies worked. Now they have become most economically developed country in the EU. It does not imply from this example that Greece will be next Germany. What, however, does imply from the example is that correcting past wrongs can lead to better future. In the end, do not forget why such measures are taken. It is not because of sadomasochistic attitude of Germany to enslave Europe, but because national politicians failed. If they had not failed, no austerity would have been implemented. Simple. Therefore, I consider austerity measures as needed to force changes for which national politicians lost courage.

Second point contains value-based argument about keeping the promises which you were signed in the past. The purpose of Basic Treaties (founding documents of the EU) is to set equal “rule of the game” for every member. The Treaties introduce values and norm of the EU. Most of us agree that one should follow these values and norms while he is in. The norms for economic performance of the states are included in the Treaties, so they are applicable for every member state. Nowadays, Spain, Portugal and others break these rules. Austerity measures in the EU are a response for breaking fundamental principles in the Treaties. From this follows that it is not morally wrong to enforce the norms that were agreed by all. If we are not enforcing compliance with the EU norms then there is a precedential decision which can lead to respecting other breaking of Treaties as well. Just consider when other principle of the EU is at stake. Most of the people would argue that it is fair to keep promises. But why then is it bad to enforce austerity when country signed the Treaties? Should not we enforce the norms as well in this case? That challenge is rarely put forward by mass media and even more rarely thought at public. Once you are a contract side, you need to bare consequences of not fulfilling the norms. Therefore, I believe that austerity is justifiable as long as it forces others to comply with the Treaties.

Against the motion

Miguel Gallardo Albajar, Project director of AEGEE-Europe.

The ‘troika’ (the European Central Bank, the European Commission, and the International Monetary Fund) should abandon the thesis that the solution to the current crisis should be based upon austerity. During the last years, they have been imposing this idea against very solid arguments, like the evidence of its adverse effects on the countries that the measures were supposed to save. We all have been witness on how austerity has failed to solve the problems of the countries severely affected by the current financial crisis, with the sole exception of Ireland which had very specific conditions. Austerity has failed to reactivate economy, but it has caused additional problems for middle classes by cutting basic services as education, health care and other social benefits. Moreover, it has been used in many cases as an alibi for enforcing a neoliberal (or maybe we should say ‘neocon’) agenda, including privatization of basic services such as health, air control and water, in many cases sold at very low price due to the urgency of obtaining cash flow, or under suspicion of benefiting some private interests.

The whole austerity idea is quite new, as for previous crises different kind of solutions were taken. It mainly relies on a scientific publication from the National Bureau of Economical Research in Harvard, called “Growth in a time of debt”, issued in 2010. It has been mentioned by US government, by EU commissioner Olli Rehn, or the president of the European Central Bank, when recommending (or imposing) austerity measures to bring back the economic growth.

What nobody could expect is that a young PhD student would prove that the excel sheet from where the article extracts the conclusions is full of mistakes. This shocking discovery has been backed up by the tutors of the 28 years old student, which were skeptics at the beginning but later acknowledged that he was right. What worries me is that nobody checked the calculations before taking dramatic measures that have worsened unemployment, impoverished the whole society of many countries and maybe even jeopardised the growth they were supposed to stimulate.

Many economists start to admit their lack of critical analysis, and politicians have changed their attitude in the last weeks, loosening the strict conditions imposed to countries that had been bailed out. The authors admit partially their mistake, but also signal the politicians which in occasions have cited their research to justify measures that could not be based upon their conclusions. Politicians now try to avoid their responsibility by blaming researchers for their wrong decisions.

In any case, what has been proven is that austerity is not the magic solution to reactivate economies. A rationalization of the budgets is for sure necessary (investment in research and education in the line of the Europe 2020 Strategy should be kept), but Europe has to stop the destruction of decades of achievements in social welfare, which have shaped the society of our continent. This wrong direction, sustained even against evidence by blindly following a research article, is one of the causes of the erosion of the image of Europe on the eyes of its citizens, and it will need years of right policies to gain the trust back. We cannot wait until tomorrow for this change to start.