eurovision-debate

Last night, five candidates for the next President of the EU Commission took part in a live TV debate. Yesterday’s Eurovision #TellEurope debate was not the first such debate between the candidates, but it was definitely the largest, being shown across Europe in 24 languages and on 49 TV channels.

The five candidates were: Jean-Claude Juncker of the  Centre-Right European People’s Party; Martin Schulz of the  Social Democrats (PES); Ska Keller of the  GreensGuy Verhofstadt of the  Liberal Democrats (ALDE) and Alexis Tsipras of the Radical Left (European Left).

Debating Europe is the official debating partner of the #TellEurope debate, and ahead of the broadcast we published profiles of all the candidates, as well as candidate interviews and a look at their party manifestos. You can also VOTE in our Debating Europe Vote 2014 for the party you support – but hurry because voting closes at 14h00 CET today!

Vote 2014

Voting is closed in our Debating Europe Vote 2014! The results are now in, so come and see what our readers thought!

For the first time, the Radical Left candidate, Alexis Tsipras, took part. Some of the most heated exchanges of the night involved Tsipras, such as when he accused the  Centre-Right candidate, Jean-Claude Juncker, of conspiring to “remove democratically elected leaders in Greece and Italy and replace them with bankers and bureaucrats.” Likewise, Tsipras also came under fire himself, including from Guy Verhofstadt for the  Liberal Democrats, who argued that the crisis in Greece was caused not by the EU but due to mismanagement by Greek political parties, and that Tsipras’ own national party is also subsidised by public banks.

Although the debate took part amidst a growing public sense of disillusion with the EU, eurosceptic parties refused to put forward a nominee of their own. Nevertheless, despite past accusations that the candidates were too similar, clear policy differences were on display last night.

On the economy, Juncker for the  Centre-Right argued that responsible spending coupled with deepening of the EU’s Single Market were the keys to growth, whilst Tsipras for the Radical Left said austerity had been “disastrous” and the EU needed a “New Deal” of generous investment, Verhofstadt for the  Liberal Democrats argued a “leap forward” in European integration was needed to take advantage of economies of scale, Keller for the  Greens wanted to see investment in a greener and more sustainable economy and Schulz for the  Social Democrats outlined plans for a microcredit program to support SMEs and grow Europe’s economy.

On foreign policy, the candidates disagreed strongly over the most appropriate response to the situation in Ukraine. Schulz for the  Social Democrats argued the EU is not a military power, so the priority must be to ensure that the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine proceed smoothly and peacefully; Keller for the  Greens said it was hypocritical of EU governments not to suspend arms shipments to Russia, and believed it was time for the EU to prioritise energy independence; Verhofstadt for the  Liberal Democrats argued that the EU’s response has been “too weak” and that strong sanctions are “the only language Putin understands”; Juncker for the  Centre-Right agreed the EU must be prepared to step up sanctions against Russia, including the threat of “blocking financial flows” (a possible reference to suspending Russia from the Swift financial transactions system) and Tsipras for the Radical Left said that the EU should not use “Cold War language” towards Russia and dialogue is the only way forwards.

One thing the candidates were absolutely united on, however, was that one of them would be the next EU Commission President. For the first time, national governments are obliged to “take account” of the results of the European elections – but some pundits argue they may settle on an alternative candidate. However, public expectation – even more so after last night’s debate – will be that one of the candidates taking part in the #TellEurope debate will head the next European Commission. It’s also important not to underestimate the strength of cross-party feeling in the European Parliament on this point, particularly as the Parliament has to give the final okay before any candidate can be adopted.

Did you watch last night’s TV debate? Who did YOU think came out on top? Don’t forget that this is your last chance to VOTE for the party you support in our Debating Europe Vote 2014 – voting closes today at 14h00 CET! And let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy makers and experts for their reactions!

Vote 2014

Voting is closed in our Debating Europe Vote 2014! The results are now in, so come and see what our readers thought!



129 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. Frankie Babyee

    No one…they are all bought and paid for puppets who serve the interests, and push the agendas, of the wealthy elite.

    • Matthijs Pontier

      I agree. The only suitable candidate was not invited to participate: Amelia Andersdotter of the European Pirates

    • Simeon Kostov

      <3

    • Ericbanner

      Absolutely agree,How can this sham be described as a debate when NO eurosceptic candidates were allowed to be present,..you can choose who you want as long as it’s one of the candidates that are chosen for you.Democracy doesn’t even get a look in.Disgraceful

  2. Luke Lamb

    Following last nights debate #TellEUROPE hosted by EURO VISION DEBATE channel, I was pleased to see that more of the current issues where addressed. #GuyVerhofstadt was the main candidate that stood out. He managed to mention all the factors needed to start running the #europeanunion As head of the #europeancommiusion I think he will take on not only the current internal situation that Europe is facing regarding the regeneration of itself but also the external situations currently on the world agendas. For the rest of the candidates, it is clear to see what positions they will fit into. #MartinSchulz has stood out on be-halve of the citizens of Europe and I feel that the position he currently holds should continue. #SkaKeller has guaranteed her position as the voice of reason with regard to all our environmental issues, her place in the #EU should be strengthened in order that we can start to manage the energy issues and clean up Europe. #Jean-ClaudeJuncker has shown us that he his the backbone of the banking sector here in Europe, his time spent managing all the financial difficulties the Union faces can be over come and managed at the top level. His continued efforts will be a valuable asset to us all. For the additional candidate or wild card, it shows us how important it is create a common language. It was clear to see that last night on the #twitter account of #Euro-visionDebate that English was #trending the most. In the following weeks I will interviewing all the candidates and MEP’s. #lukelamb reporting for #theindependenteuronews

  3. Silvia Belloni

    Guy Verhofstadt for sure

  4. Stefanescu Dan

    mi se pare c? e la mishto ,c? se ?tie cte procente o s? aib? fiecare ,c? sunt aranjate c?r?ile !

  5. Roberto Patrone

    sorry, none of them. I thought voting liberal, but I changed my mind and now I don’t know.
    There is no such thing like a direct election of the president of the commission in the Lisbon Treaty.
    The european parliament will suggest a name, but we will elect the european parliament and not the president of the commission. In the european parliament there will be several other political groups and will be the whole parliament that will have to decide the person to be suggested to the council.
    The common position of the 5 candidates on the question concerning if the president of the commission must be one of them, was “yes” but it is NOT true and nothing to do with democracy. It is a forcing, a farse. Just as example AECR has asked to participate to the debate with a representative but it has been declined because they didn’t choose to have a candidate president. other parties was not on the debate but will be inside the parliament.. the debate was futile

    • Mathieu Soete

      The 5 candidates present in the debate represent around 76% of the seats in the EP (http://www.elections2014.eu/en/news-room/content/20140324STO39616/html/2014-European-elections-latest-projections-of-seats-in-the-Parliament), so if all of them were candid on the next Commission president being one of the current candidates, that’s a pretty good indication of what’s to come after May 25th. No misrepresentation of things there.

      I agree though that it’s not a direct presidential election, and that it’s not the most democratic and transparent way of finding a new president of the Commission — most likely EPP and S&D will agree on who of them will deliver the presidents of Commission and Parliament respectively. It is a huge improvement with previous cycles though. And what’s stopping us from demanding an even more direct say in the matter? Several politicians have already called for true, direct, and pan-European presidential elections, including ALDE candidate Guy Verhofstadt.

      Change needs time, so I’m putting my hopes on real presidential elections by 2019 or 2024. In the meantime I think this procedure does offer some democratic gains nonetheless, by putting faces on the rather abstract European alliances, and enabling a more direct style of debate.

      As for your last point, if AECR did not nominate a candidate for president, how could they be present in a debate between those same candidates for president?

  6. Sebastiaan Van Severen

    Juncker, by far. He (and maybe Schulz) was the only one not to fire off one-liners and fallacies. He clearly and politely stated his straightforward opinions, without attacking any of his opponents directly, like Verhofstadt did. He was the only one to unequivocally advocate freedom of religion, pointing out that the EU has no say in this.

  7. Fiona Craddock

    1. Ska Keller spoke very well, calm, confident, excellent enunciation and actually answering the questions.
    2. Guy Verhofstad strengthened his position one of the leading candidates, although it felt as though he was just shouting at us all evening – being energetic on some points is good, but please don’t yell all the time!
    3. Schultz stood up for the citizens, yes, but it always seemed to be a repeat of what Keller had said before him. And as for other matters…pfff…
    4. Junker came across as tired and only focussed on financial matters. The president of the Commission has to juggle with all the different policies and Junker would drop all the balls save one.
    5. The Greek guy wasted our time, because there was no translation with the web streaming, and honestly, if you’re running for president of the Commission, it’s just offensive to not even bother speaking one of the 3 working languages during an electoral debate.
    Ideally, I think the Commission could best benefit of a joint Keller-Verhofstad presidency to combine Ska’s proximity to citizens and sustainable approach with Guy’s experience. Sadly, that would never happen…

    • Katia kanari

      Of course there was a translation..it is better to speak well your own language than”..some sort of english” . They are not there in order to impress us with their foreign language skills!!

    • ioannis

      The Greek guy has a name and Europe is founded on multiculturality, so sorry he is greek

    • Peri Ser

      The only offensive madame is that they have employes like you working in the european commission … And it is offensive for all the european people who is paying your high salary….

    • Dimitris

      The problem is that Tsipras spoke Greek just because he can’t speak English. And that’s a pity for Europe, to have such a candidate but also an insult to all of us Greeks.

  8. Bastian

    At first glance: Only Junkers and Tsipras appeared to me authentic, speaking in their mother tongue and thus not denying nationality.

    In contrast, particularly the two Germans, Keller and Schulz, in denying their mother tongue radiated a kind of cultural and political opportunism.

    We can expect, that those who deny nationality in the EU context, will also deny Europe when it comes to interest bargaining on the global level.

  9. lefteuropeancitizen

    Well its not about the language issue that was created and seems negligible but it was all about the proposals, the manifestos of each party which in my opinion the best was the European Left Candidate because for first time in EU history someone contrasts the already failed way of governing and proposes someting new for first time when Europe needs a change and you have to be the change if u wish to see your life changing , so change :)

  10. JOHN

    Tsipras was the best! Go European Left Go!

  11. Jaume Roqueta

    so instead of asking if the debate was interesting, usefull etc… you ask who won? this is very shortminded!. there are more important things in live than trying just trying to win to the others… this is a very capitalistic view of live… the thind is that they where debating politics that will affect our lives… some of them where laying more than others…. for sure Junker is caracteristic of not telling what he is thinkint… a man of few words…. i am really scared of him as a president of the UE.

  12. maria_dokupilova

    SKA KELLER because she had clear answers and positions that are not changing as the wind blows. She is consistent with the party positions and she was a real representative of the Greens and not promoting herself.

  13. Francesco Nicoli

    Verhofstadt won again, but I’ll stick to my decision to vote Schulz

  14. Pietro Moroni

    Schulz was the only one to defend the laity! He is the only one worthy to be voted for sure.

  15. K Kyriakidis

    Το ζήτημα δεν είναι ποιος μας εντυπωσιάζει, αλλά ποιος προτείνει λύσεις και συγχρόνως διαθέτει δύναμη και αποφασιστικότητα να τις προωθήσει.
    Επιλέγω Jean-Claude Juncker!

  16. Keivan Hadji Hossein

    Martin Shulz! Congratulations also to Ska Keller and Tsipras hope they’ll give a great contribution for an EU closer to its citizens and more aware of their needs. Junker was incredibly disappointing!

  17. Patrice Puchaux

    Could we have the video of the debate with english subtitles? Because I didn’t understand any word from Mr Tzipras.

  18. Together-We-Stand

    Guy Verhofstadt was the obvious winner.

    • Omiridis Triantafyllos

      Everyone of them just represents his political Brand. Okay, then. Conhita it is.

  19. Tamás Heizler

    I missed Eastern-European candidate, there were only French, German, Belgian candidates, one Greek

  20. Antonio Caso

    Ska Keller won the debate, but very good also Tsipras.
    Schulz less convincing than the other debates.
    Juncker really awkward, it reminded me of Berlusconi when he said “I love Greece” ridiculous.

  21. catherine benning

    First, if like me, you can’t see this debate with the link put on this thread, you may be able to get it here, as I did. It did not ask me to turn my desk top upside down.

    http://www.crashonline.eu/watch-live-now-the-televised-debate-of-candidates-for-european-commission-president/

    Then, I want to attack the ridiculous choice of presenter. Her accent in the English was so thick and hesitant it was barely possible to understand her. Now why did they need to do this, when they clearly had word perfect translators who were fantastic for the two candidates who sensibly chose their mother tongue to enlighten us as to their policies. If you choose to have the debate in English, then choose someone who knows how to speak it clearly and with correct intonation to present it. The Green candidate did have excellent English and although I liked very little of what she had to say, I did appreciate her fluency and wished she was a good in politics as he is at languages.

    Juncker with how banks are now responsible was asinine. And he’s a traitor of the European people in his leaning toward selling us out to the US trade agreement. He’s on the take.

    Verhofstadt was anti Russian and that too is off the wall. Small minded was his problem, same old rubbish and propaganda. The rest of his policy talk was old hat tried and tested and failed.

    Shulz likewise, an old loser who has had his chance and lost.

    Keller; childish and unrealistic, her offer was offensive to the thinking population.

    Tsipras was the only person who was balanced, thoughtful and understanding of the needs of ‘all’ the people. We want a Europe that belongs to the people. democracy and referendums. This guy is the only answer to the future. Rid of troika and a debt re-think. He had new ideas that made sense not the same old has beens who brought us into this Capitalist ruin.

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Catherine Benning FAUX Brit
      “Her accent in the English…” LOL!!

      Are you paid to make postings on this forum, you continually make grammatical mistakes that no bona fide native English speaker would make?

      As for the candidates – who cares who wins in a ‘beauty parade of damned undemocratic liars’!

  22. I ΚΑΛΟΜΕΝΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ

    Alexis Tsipras. We have to change Europe

    • george

      yeah especially in the part where tsipras asked him and he didnt answer….:):)

  23. Melita Galea

    No way ! I don’t trust Martin Schulz.Great politicians shouldn’t use music to win votes.

  24. Giorgos

    I think Alexis Tsipras is the real alternative for Europe

  25. Matthijs Pontier

    The only suitable candidate was not invited to participate: Amelia Andersdotter of the European Pirates.
    Why does the EU engage in this political censorship?

  26. Federico Bellinazzi

    Definitely Tsipras, but Ska keller, as well, was really good, it’s a pity that in Italy we haven’t a real green party to support her!

    • george

      was there no translation in your country/language?….. now…21st century here

  27. Guy weets

    Martin Shultz is the only one who consistently support a deep reform of the banking system. On this topics Junkers is not an option for me. Guy Verhofstadt would be a good EC president but I am not sure he will defend strongly enough the interest of the EU in the negotiation of the trans-atlantic treaty. After all he is a liberal. I don’t know Keller but the german greens are a bit extremists. So I will vote for Shultz

  28. ironworker

    Schulz versus Neocon down in the dusty Colosseum arena, the “gladiators” that will shape Europe’s face for the next 5 years, sharp swords and shiny armors, blood all over, the crowd on fire, girls fainting…

    What we got instead ?

    – You got 23 seconds to answer…
    – OK, times up… Ding !

  29. george

    Tsipras won hands down.cornered schultz twice,and spoke out against the europe we all want gone.Now i realise it is hard for the right wing rich fat wallets to admit defeat,but hey ,the wheel is turning ,try not to stay under it…:)left is going to win europe and social unity will again be the main target.enough with the bankers ,investors,industrialists and their blackmails.we can built a united europe without the.

  30. georse athanasiadiw

    Tsipras the BEST!!!!!!!!

  31. Theodossios

    Really? Just think what Europe was created for and what values she stood for! And then think. Does this Europe of Justice, Solidarity and social Cohesion exists now? I think not! Which of the 5 Candidates spoke and had a vision of the re-establishment and strengthening of that Europe, who the most of us really want!!!! Certainly, it was Alexis Tsipras and No Doubt about it!!!!! Why people do not really listen? And do not let anyone say that did not understand because he spoke in Greek. Greek, is one of the official languages of the EU and there was simultaneous interpretation anyway!!!!! So, no excuses!!!! And, of-course, Mr Tsipras knows English very well, but when you take positions on policies and what Europe should stand for, it is much better for everyone to express it in his/her own language that just trying to impress with their supposed multilingualism.
    Also, has anyone watched his tireless campaign throughout Europe trying to promote the Europe of its citizens and not of the Bankers and big multinational corporations??? I can no understand how European, old or young, can really still believe politicians who brought Europe down onits knees and the majority of its young people to unemployment and desperation as they can see no future for themselves….

  32. Peri Ser

    From the comments I understood that greek language was not translated in all the other languages of the countries that there was a live streaming… Why did that happened? Isn’t greek one of the languages in the EU? And how do you ask to vote for a winner if there was no opportunity for everyone to listen to all the candidates? I am waiting for an official answer about this issue…

  33. Tobias Reinsch

    Guy Verhofstadt would be the best president for Europe.

  34. J. Bornakovs

    Guy Verhofstadt, but Schulz had some good points about competition policy and democratisation of the post of the European Commission President, also Keller made a good observation about the need for greater energy independence from Russia.

  35. GioD

    Verhofstadt. No doubt. And Keller was really good.

  36. giovanni recchi

    Guy Verhofstadt destroyed Tsipras

  37. jan van der linden

    For me was the winner Guy Verhofstadt. He stands for a liberal Europe. He wants a united states of EUROPE. We need more integration.

    • Marcel

      And he wants to decrease western Europes incomes so everyone can be ‘more equal’… and abolish national democracy. Did you miss that part?

  38. Manos

    Clearly Verhofstadt.Keller was pretty good,Juncker,Schultz and Tsipras were just disappointing.

  39. Giuseppe

    Dear Mr. Guy Verhofstadt
    I’m really keen on your federalist program and I saw that in your coalition there are some parties that have in their purpose a Europe of Nationalities and not a Europe of States. This because I live in a Nation without State where we talk our language (sardininan) which the European Parliament recognize in the ’80 of the last century. Could you explain better your position in order to this topic?
    Thank you very much in advance.

  40. Simon Bensasson

    Verhofstadt by a long margin

  41. Akritas

    Incredible that some believe neokommunism is the future for Europe. Shame

  42. Romaric

    Verhofstadt was brilliant …I really was surprise and I found him really funny and convincing with interestings Ideas and arguments. He managed to answer some critics agains his person and Ideas and could explain what we need in Europe

    Keller was the second best because of her energy and great charisma

    • Marcel

      Did he also explain how his plans are for incomes and pensions in Western Europe to be lowered by some 40% in order to create this federation of his? No? I suppose he would leave that part out, wouldn’t he?

      Or do you suppose he is one of those who don’t really realize what the consequences are of what they want, or maybe he thinks everyone can get to the income level of Germany? His dream is my nightmare.

  43. Ska4Europe

    funny how the majority of greeks screams up for Tsipras. Stop being ridiculous please.
    Keller and Verhosftadt were Great, Schulz not bad.

  44. Iulian Alex

    Why vote, you have representatives in parliament. What did Europe to Romania regarding the industry, I became the country importing agricultural products. From producing country, we have, to import food from all over Europe, we are a second hand country. Throughout Europe, has the right to free movement in the U.S., but Romania and Bulgaria need a visa. I can not vote!

    • `

      no, we don’t.
      I have just been to Brussels and wasn’t asked for no ‘visa’ what are you talking about?

  45. `

    While i a leaning towards Tsipras, his ‘pro-Putin’ rhetoric is very worrying. I don’t think he recognizes the danger this new Russia posses to the world stage.
    Keller was great – as expected from the greens, so no special mention there.

    Verhofstadt..ehh….not bad but he’s missing bigger issues. He’s a dreamer i’ll give him that.

  46. Marcel

    So, someone who was voted out at home (Juncker), a man who hates democracy (Verhofstadt), a man who despises ordinary people and condescends anyone who dares to oppose the undemocratic Eurosoviet (Schulz) and people who want to seize even more of our money than the others…

    • `

      Who would you vote for?
      Farage? LePen? Wilders?

  47. Marcel

    Why don’t they explain how a federal Europe would see everyone with German level incomes, pensions or benefits? Of course, the reason they don’t explain this because this is totally impossible.

    Federalization therefore means massive wage/pension/benefit cuts in western Europe, the more federalization, the bigger those cuts will need to be to get everyone in around the ‘weighted average’.

    This is of course the chief point that Verhofstadt either overlooks, or maybe he does know and thinks this is ‘worth it’ because he knows his class won’t suffer the cuts.

    Plus, Verhofstadt wants to betray European workers to the TTIP transatlantic treaty. He should stay away from pianos…

  48. Fey Ho

    First, there is a new geopolitical situation in Eurasia and Asia, which means we need a more united Europe to defend and uphold European values
    Second, a more united Europe on a basis of having openness and solidarity can foster growth and dynamism which benefits all the European countries members.
    Third, population and social mobility generate dynamic for Europe. So, fear is not the solution to protect individual countries but policies are. Innovative ideas are the key to make those policies work for Europe
    Youth Unemployment is an indication the way of looking into and running the economies are out of date. And, in that sense, we need unity, mutual cooperation and market openness (social and population mobility) among nations more than ever.
    Immigrants prob. seems to be a concern in some of the nations but as mention, it’s an opporunity more than a threat -if we have policy to make that work and turn into a benefit (to make Europe more dynamic). The aim is to develop a channel or tool and make it accessible for the immigrants to be able to be well adapted to the European values and way of life. Social inclusion is important.
    Having a more united Europe would also allow a better way to have 1 voice (and a powerful voice) on the foreign policy.
    The president of the EU commission should be capable of not just dealing with the micro-level of economics but leading EU formulating policies that are good for Europe for a long term perspective.

    • catherine benning

      @ Fey Ho:

      Your main thrust is to center on promotion of immigration. ‘Immigration’ I’m sure you realise, is opening the doors of our borders to the world outside of Europe, not the migration of Europeans from one state to another.

      Therefore, can you please explain how bringing in millions of peoples from outside Europe, most of who are not only illiterate but have customs unacceptable to the mainstream of European culture (FGM – Female subjugation- honour killing- male dominated faiths -slave like acceptance of a ruling capitalist class – religious practices that include whole body mutilation of those considered to have demonic spirits-apartheid of class structure-rejection of tolerance to their belief in these systems – high levels of health care needs such as AIDS and other long term communicable diseases – birth defects from inter family marriage) and so on. This is ludicrously expensive and does not, in any way, give Europe a chance to get back on its financial feet and away from austerity, therefore, why would you want to promote such a backward thinking policy? Why do you believe the European tax payer wants to fund this kind of project ahead of their own needs to educate their families, have a secure and stable employment, be able to have good secure and safe housing, pensions and other necessary expectations in a civilised lifestyle?

      Please spell out what this mass immigration policy from the world does for the European tax payer. Not what it does for the corporate and financial sector to enable them to exploit the human condition ever further. I would really like a full and up to date projection, because all we ever get from people like you is the same vagueness we get from the Greens and their ilk you write of.

  49. Fey Ho

    So, out of all these candidates, I think Verholfstadt is close whereas Keller though talks a lot about offering an alternative solutions to Europe, I don’t really get what the “alternatives” would be if she’s leading the EU commission (too vagues).

    • Fey Ho

      @Catherine Benning
      I am talking about having a sound policy is the fundamental baseline behind all the direction we are going to take and that’s why we need a leader which is capable of looking at a big picture, with a vision, for a long term, and upholding all important European values.
      With the new geopolitical situation around the world, we need a more accurate view about what’s happening around us so that we could really defend our values and sovereignty and what we believe.
      Immigration is bilateral: either within Europe or in/out Europe. We need quality citizens even from outside. (they are also tax payers, aren’t they if they become EU citizen?). There’re a lot of cases that we wrongly perceive what’s the thinking and strategy behind other nations. It’s another reason why we need to keep EU more diversed but in a high quality way. (that’s the reason I mentioned we aim to have those who move into Europe to be well-adapted to European values).
      Just for example, I disagree that we should use the “buy property investment” tool to lure foreign investors to buy properties in Europe in return for getting residence permits there (such as in Portugal or Spain) because money in itself should not be the only requirement to determine who could/should live in Europe as a residence. (that’s what I am worried about -especially understanding that a lot of chinese investors who (have millions) just buy all the properties in NYC, Europe, Canada and Australia.
      thanks.

  50. Fey Ho

    So, while Verhofstadt is close, Keller is too vague when she’s trying to deliver what she could offer an alternative solutions to Europe.

    • catherine benning

      @Fey Ho:

      As I thought, you cannot answer one question succinctly. Your vague pronunciation of what should be the European policy toward immigration from outside of our borders is unsubstantiated nonsense. The handful of worthy individuals entering our lands is dwarfed by the masses of unproductive flotsam and jetsam, which is an expensive and idiotic way to run any state, let alone a group of states.

      And tell me why we do not make the emphasis and use of our taxes on training, educating and bring our own younger generation of people into the sphere of productive working tax paying work force rather than have them thrown on the dung heap begging for a bone? Why should we turn them away in favour of others from outside who should be making their own countries a place where they can shine? If they can do it in Europe once they arrive, why not where they come from?

      I take it you are an immigrant who wants to see more of your fellow countrymen by your side, to the detriment of the European indigenous who seek help from their state who should put them first before all others.

  51. Edyta

    Ska Keller was the best by a mile in the debate and it is time Europe is run by a woman below 40 for a change :- ). Hope it is going to translate into the votes!

  52. klassen

    Who cares!

    I have a question for all of the above candidates..
    Why are you all so scared to give in/out referendums?
    Dont answer all at once please..
    You all preach democracy but we get the feeling you all mean something else..

required
required Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

More debates from this series – Road to the elections View all