PartyParty Attends is our signature series where we immerse ourselves in the political arena’s most dynamic discussions. We bring you the backroom talk from political professionals throughout Europe and give you front row access to the most important party events.
The Dutch city of Maastricht was crowded on Monday evening as Studio Europa Maastricht and POLITICO hosted the first important debate between the political parties ahead of the EP Elections. The debate was supposed to reveal the parties’ ‘Vision for Europe’, challenging them in three main areas identified by a student poll: climate change, foreign and security policy, and EU democracy.
While all the registered European political parties were invited to send a Spitzenkandidat to the debate, only eight party Spietzenkandidates took the stage on Monday, with European Commission President and EPP top pick Ursula von der Leyen standing in the middle as the representative of the highest-polling party.
Before the debate started, candidates walked on a short red carpet to meet some of their supporters, take selfies and answer national or European medias’ questions. Von der Leyen received the least favourable welcome from the crowd. A young woman didn’t hold her feelings toward von der Leyen, shouting from the Vrijthof square, ‘’You are a war criminal and a shame for Germany”. The Commission President has come under dire criticism, particularly from younger people across Europe, due to her unconditional support for Israel at the start of its offensive in Gaza after the Hamas massacre of Israelis on October 7. Unbothered, von der Leyen replied to two quick questions in the quietest possible voice and entered the hall while the girl was taken away by security.
Key moments and major players
After the first few minutes of the debate, it was clear that three Spitzenkandidaten would dominate the whole discussion – Von der Leyen, European Green Party’s Bas Eickhout and right-wing Identity and Democracy (ID) Party’s Anders Vistisen – seen as the villain by the mostly student audience.
As Jakob Hanke Vela perfectly described von der Leyen’s performance, “What we saw on the Maastricht stage last night…was an experienced campaigner who clearly enjoys trading barbs with her opponents.” However, even at her best, she wasn’t bulletproof. In the climate section of the discussion, she was too technical and jargony. She had more chances to talk because her opponents attacked her with open-ended questions about Ukraine, Gaza, cooperating with the right, Pfizergate (referring to her informal text-message exchanges with pharma giant Pfizer’s CEO when trying to secure Covid-19 vaccines for the EU), and compromises on climate following farmers’ protests. Yet, this constant rebuttal kept her in the spotlight and allowed her to make clarifications, address the points of other candidates’ comments and lay down her main messages. She looked calm, collected and prepared – as was to be expected from a Commission president after five years of power and media scrutiny.
Her exchange with ID Spietzenkandidat Vistisen, with whom Eickhout also tangled, earned her some points as well. Neither of them held back from denouncing ID’s alleged ties with Russia and China, with the identical statement of “clean up your own house before you attack others”.
Dutch MEP Eickhout, with his ‘Choose courage, choose Green’ motto, consistently emerged as the favourite in the room, frequently drawing applause after his remarks, hinting at attacks on European democracy from the outside and the inside. He didn’t rely much on notes and found the perfect moments to jump into the debate with a combative but also persuasive tone. However, the Greens have faced setbacks in recent national elections and are trailing behind the top five parties in the latest polls for the European elections.
The unfortunate letdowns
At a time when polls projected a large swing towards the right and radical right, the representatives of the second and third largest parties in the outgoing Parliament needed to shine and keep the centre and centre-left unshaken. Especially since von der Leyen didn’t rule out the possibility of working with the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) party, which includes many right-wing and Eurosceptic parties.
However, both Nicolas Schmit, European Commissioner from S&D, and Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann from the liberal-centrist ALDE Party/Renew Europe Group disappointed their supporters and left the audience unimpressed. The only moment when Schmit dominated the discussion and drew a reaction was when he confronted von der Leyen about her comments on potential collaboration with the ECR, depending on the composition of the Parliament. “Either you can deal with the extreme right because you need them, or you say clearly there is no deal possible because they do not respect the fundamental rights (that) our Commission has fought for,” said Schmit.
For German MP Strack-Zimmermann, most of the time, it felt like the language barrier severely inhibited her performance and chemistry with the audience. She didn’t challenge fellow candidates, and when she did, particularly with von der Leyen, it played out against her. Her English was wooden. “I am a politician of security”, she said in one of her early interventions. As Chair of the Defence Committee of the German Bundestag, she indeed has the strongest background in security and defence. Still, it was difficult to discern how exactly her party aimed to “build a Europe that protects us and keeps us safe”.
The unsung hero
Maylis Roßberg, the European Free Alliance Spitzenkandidatin, didn’t ‘win’ the debate, but she definitely won many hearts. The 24-year-old activist “for small voices and big ideas” was prepared and authentic, painfully aware that she would not become “the next Commission president or an MEP.” Nevertheless, she used almost all of her time to challenge senior politicians on the stage and acted as the voice of many young people. She confessed that she took Europe for granted (a statement that would resonate with many Europeans nowadays) but that the promise her generation was given “has failed”. Her closing statement was addressed not to the audience or the voters but to the other candidates. “I need you to remember that when in power, you’re not just deciding directives and regulations; you’re deciding about the future of our generation”, said Roßberg.
The left’s push on housing
Walter Baier, the Spitzenkandidat of the Party of the European Left, tried to play along with the audience’s expectations but could not top the charisma of Eickhout in his native Netherlands. Baier’s insistent focus on the housing crisis in his opening statement and in the discussion earned him some points. He suggested a regulatory framework to control Airbnb and other platforms, the creation of a European fund for affordable housing, as well as an EU directive to introduce a legal rent cap.
He ran into trouble for his vague suggestion of a ‘political solution’ to Russia’s war against Ukraine, which gave von der Leyen an opportunity to mention her many trips to Ukraine since the beginning of the war, summing up her point with “If you want to end this war, Putin just has to stop fighting”. Baier tried to recover by switching the discussion towards the war in Gaza and calling for sanctions on Israel.
Last but not least, while the President of the European Christian Political Movement, Valeriu Ghilețchi, was the least popular candidate in a room full of Gen-Z students, he earned an honourable mention for his energy. Ghilețchi’s background was a bigger and more interesting story than any political communication expert could create. As a former Soviet soldier from Moldova, Ghilețchi confessed that “even in my wildest dreams”, he couldn’t imagine himself in Maastricht “in this free debate”. “But this proves that our dreams can become reality. And I would encourage you to care for your fundamental freedoms.” With his ‘elevate, empower, engage’ motto, focus on policies rooted in Christian values, supporting families and referring to nature and climate as the creation of God, he will definitely find his small niche within the European electorate.
Was the crowd persuaded?
I learned the hard way that the perception of political communicators on messages usually differs from the perception of the audience, especially a young one in the crowd. I questioned several students and audience members about what they had felt, seen and understood during those 1.5 hours. The reactions were mixed.
Some students said that they were disappointed that instead of answering the moderators’ questions, the Spitzenkandidaten were trying ‘to go one-up on each other on a very personal level in a US-presidential style debate, which wasn’t representative of their parties’.
Most students identified von der Leyen as the strongest and most consistent candidate in the debate and Schmit and Strack Zimmermann as the most disappointing. Both scored a very low 4 percent in the post-debate audience poll, compared to 44 percent for Eickhout and 32 percent scored by the Commission president.
One student mentioned that Vistisen was attacked ‘mostly because of his political views’ as the students acknowledged that while he was a competent speaker and a professional, he alienated a room full of young people more sympathetic to Green/centrist views.
Students also noted that the format itself was quite restrictive because it didn’t allow the candidates to go into depth about the issues.
What lies ahead
There will be two more debates between the candidates before the elections on 6-9 June. Will these debates change anything significant on the ground and at polling stations? It is highly questionable. The YouTube stream of the debate at the moment of writing has around 30,000 views. If you count the debate-watching parties that happened in different corners of Europe, maybe that number could reach 100.000. But on a continent with 450 million citizens voting, it’s a minute proportion. By comparison, 7.6 million people watched the Grand Final of the Eurovision Song Contest live on YouTube last year, not counting the views on national TVs.
These debates, however, will have much more importance within the Brussels bubble. They will make or break political careers, fuel media debate, and impact reputations and internal party dynamics. Finally, they may also influence the members of the European Council and Parliament when proposing and confirming the College of Commissioners after the elections. After all, despite the entertaining show, it’s not voters who will elect the President of the European Commission.
