EESC info

EESC's Youth Group aims to be a hub where young people's concerns and ideas can be heard and transformed into concrete policy recommendations, writes its president Nicoletta Merlo

By Nicoletta Merlo, President of the EESC Youth Group

My professional and personal journey has always been closely linked to one core belief: young people must have a say in decisions that shape their present and their future. This objective underpins the work of the EESC Youth Group, created in July 2023 to strengthen youth participation and to better reflect young people’s realities, priorities and expectations in the Committee’s work.

Today, the Youth Group’s mission goes beyond formal mandates. Alongside overseeing tools such as the EESC Youth Test and supporting youth‑related EESC initiatives, we aim to be a hub where young people’s concerns, ideas and proposals can be heard and transformed into concrete policy recommendations. Listening to young people across Europe — including from neighbouring and candidate countries — and translating their voices into the EESC’s work remains a priority.

The year 2026 will be particularly significant. The Youth Group will hold regular meetings with thematic debates and take part in major moments such as European Youth Week and Council Presidency Youth Conferences. Some topics identified for this year include the responsible and safe use of AI, combatting disinformation, and the cooperation with candidate country youth organisations. These milestones will also seek to contribute to the next EU Youth Strategy to be adopted in 2027.

Our ambition is clear: to ensure that youth perspectives are not consulted only occasionally but embedded permanently in how EU policies are shaped — today, and for generations to come.

100 young participants in the European Economic and Social Committee’s (EESC) top youth event Your Europe, Your Say! called on the EU institutions to pay far more attention to their housing needs, challenges in the digital world and their potential in political and social life. Their proposals will feed into the EU’s next strategy for young people.

‘Go big or NO home’, ‘Think before you click: Make Privacy Sexy Again’ and ‘Nothing about us without us’, were voted as three best proposals among 17 created by more than a hundred young people who took part in the  17th edition of Your Europe, Your Say! (YEYS) on 19 and 20 March 2026 in Brussels.

The three winning proposals reflect the top concerns and priorities that young people consider to be crucial for the next EU Youth Strategy. They address the acute housing problem in Europe, challenges of living in a digital world and the feeling of not being heard by politicians.

The event brought together almost 140 participants, including secondary school students and their teachers, as well as young adults associated with youth organisations. Over one and a half days, the participants took part in interactive workshops, teambuilding activities and collaborative discussions, creating a dynamic youth assembly focused on meaningful connections, active participation and democratic engagement. 

‘At the EESC, we believe that young people must be at the heart of shaping Europe’s future. Creating spaces where they can meet, exchange ideas, challenge perspectives and build solutions is vital’, stressed Séamus Boland, EESC President. 

At the YEYS opening plenary, speakers shared insights from their social and political activism and the challenges they had faced. Carolin Hochstrat of The Democratic Spin advised young people never to let anyone persuade them that they are too young to speak out on important social issues. She urged them not to wait for others to affirm that they are ready to take action, reminding them that perfect readiness does not exist. 

Boris Gurzhy from Junior Enterprise, urged young people to make their voices heard themselves, rather than simply waiting to be invited to participate in decision-making processes. ‘European politicians, from the Commission and Parliament, talk a lot about young people, which is great, but they do not really talk to them. So, it is up to us. It is up to young people to take the initiative, reach out, and participate in EU decision-making processes’, he said. 

MORE ON THE THREE WINNING PROPOSALS 

In the closing session, YEYS participants selected three proposals by vote, solidifying their priorities. 

The first proposal 'Go big or NO home', focuses on housing and calls for stricter oversight of tourist apartments to help safeguard local community life. It includes ideas for regulating tourist apartments, renters’ rights regulations and guaranteed affordable student housing.

 The second proposal ‘Think before you click: Make Privacy Sexy Again’, aims to increase media literacy in the public sphere by introducing it as a school subject, labelling AI-generated content and improving digital conditions through an EU-funded app. 

The final proposal, ‘Nothing about us without us’, tackles the feeling among young people that their voices go unheard. It suggests developing an AI-based digital platform offering information on the EU and targeting underrepresented groups, such as migrants, to foster their engagement and enhance communication among young people.

 All the proposals will be passed on to the European Commission to inform its work on the next EU Youth Strategy, due to be published in March 2027. 

Marija Hanževački, EESC Vice President for Communication, indicated that the proposals would be reflected in the future EESC opinion on the next EU Youth strategy and the EESC’s advisory work, including through the implementation of the EU Youth Test and advisory work of the Youth Group. 

Ingrid Bellander Todino, Head of the Youth and Volunteer Solidarity Unit in DG Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, further pledged to focus on the proposals and recommendations formulated as part of the European Commission’s work on the next EU Youth strategy. 

A recap on YEYS 2026 is captured in the event’s wrap-up video.

Be architects of Europe’s present, not just its future, and join forces with other young people to make your voice heard! These were the words young activists and speakers Carolin Hochstrat and Boris Gurzhy left with 2026 YEYS-ers in Brussels. If you missed their speeches at Your Europe, Your Say (YEYS), Carolin and Boris recap their messages in EESC Info.

Carolin Hochstrat: Young people are often introduced with the phrase: 'You are the architects of Europe's future.' And while well-intentioned, I'd push back on that framing ─ because you are not only the architects of tomorrow's Europe. You are already part of Europe today. That was the foundation of my message to the YEYS participants, built around three core ideas.

First: when people tell you that you're too young, they're wrong. You are already a member of society, already shaping the communities around you. The idea that engagement starts at some future threshold, when you're older, more experienced, more credentialed, is a myth. You are already here, and that means you are already relevant.

Second: discomfort is a signal, not a warning. If you want to change the status quo, you have to challenge it. And challenging the status quo is unsettling, for you, and for those around you. But when you notice that people are reacting, that something is shifting, that emotions are being stirred, that's not a sign to stop. That's a sign you're on the right track.

Third: you will never feel fully ready, and that's okay. There is no perfect moment to raise your voice or take your seat at the table. What matters is that we need your voice. Your generation's issues deserve space in policy rooms, not as a footnote to older agendas, but as central concerns in their own right.

It can feel daunting. But we are fighting together for a stronger Europe, and that is worth stepping beyond your comfort zone! 

Boris Gurzhy: My message to the participants of YEYS 2026 was simple: make your voice count by joining forces with others. At a time when demographic change is reshaping many European societies, it is more important than ever that young people are not only heard, but are actively involved in shaping the future.

In my opinion, the most effective ways to take part in public discussion and create real impact is through organised civil society. That is why I encouraged participants to look closely at the opportunities already available in their city or country: youth organisations, student-led initiatives, NGOs and other spaces where young people can come together around shared ideas and concerns. 

These experiences allow young people to meet each other, learn from one another, develop responsibility and strengthen their collective voice. They show that participation is not only about speaking up once, but about building communities that can be heard consistently and effectively.

Explore what already exists and get involved. And where such opportunities do not yet exist, create them yourselves. It does not have to be a Junior Enterprise; it can be any form of organised youth initiative. What matters is that young people come together, take ownership, and make their perspectives visible in society.

Carolin Hochstrat is a political communicator and Co-Founder of The Democratic Spin, a strategic communications consultancy for democratic impact. In her work, she advises institutions and democratic actors on how to translate complex policies into narratives that resonate with younger generations in a digital public sphere. She has gained professional experience in the European Parliament, the German Bundestag and in political journalism. Alongside her advisory work, she is an EU content creator engaging young Europeans online.

Boris Gurzhy studies Business Administration and Statistics at Humboldt University Berlin. He joined a Junior Enterprise in his first year in university and later became involved with Junior Enterprises Europe (JE Europe), a network representing 35,000+ students across 325 Junior Enterprises in 16 countries. He now serves as Treasurer & Head of Public Affairs at JE Europe, representing young entrepreneurs at European institutions.

How do we move away from ‘youth-washing’, where youth participation primarily produces a photo-op, rather than dialogue in which young people contribute effectively? The youngest EESC member, Laure Niclot, set out the prerequisites for the meaningful engagement of all young people, and not just the privileged few.

By Laure Niclot

Opportunities for youth participation at EU level are multiplying: youth dialogues with Commissioners; an EU youth dialogue soon entering its 12th cycle, which makes it the widest youth participation mechanism on the planet; participatory initiatives organised by different institutions (such as the EESC’s Your Europe Your Say); and even a direct advisory board to Ursula von der Leyen made up of young people.

Youth participation, in its institutional form, is there for youth organisations ready to make their voices heard. But once we have put in the work, time, and energy to contribute, what happens next? How are young people actually taken into account?

Too many youth participation experiences simply result in nice photos of young people next to politicians, along with empty promises. While any exercise in participation is valuable ─ because it allows young people who never thought they would set foot in an institution to experience what policy-making is and realise that they have every right to contribute ─ we have to underline how dangerous it might be to let ourselves slide towards ‘youth-washing’. If we let the initial experience of policy participation be more of a communication exercise than one of dialogue, how are we going to continue to ask young people to contribute to the institutional game, or simply to vote?

And let’s be honest: youth organisations, like all NGOs, are underfunded and understaffed. We do it because we believe in the value of defending youth rights, of defending our right to live in a world that’s worth hoping for, and of defending our liberties and freedoms in the face of authoritarianism. As those who will enjoy (or suffer) the consequences of the decisions we make today, I’d say we have earned our seat at the table.

So how do we step away from youth-washing and create the conditions for meaningful engagement?

I would say three ingredients are key here, including structural follow-up (which requires the necessary means) and actual representation.

Structural follow-up means organising forms of youth participation not as one-off events but as tools that are there to support meaningful, long-lasting contributions. In that regard, the EESC’s youth test is one of the best examples in the EU. And of course, to support that, we need to ensure that young people are supported, both technically and financially.

Because youth participation that only allows the representation of socio-economically privileged young people is definitely not satisfactory: there is no such thing as ‘youth’, but rather ‘individual young people’. Young people come from rural and urban areas; they are pupils, students, young workers, or somewhere in between; they come from different socio-economic backgrounds and have different migration- and gender-related experiences; their voices echo the diversity of our societies. We need to make room for all young people, and that means not just having one token young person in the room.

Youth participation is one of the ways we can open the door for the next generation of decision-makers. Let’s be careful to keep these doors actually open for all, and not feed the idea that contributing is meaningless unless you’re already in a position of power.

Like every year, EESC members visited secondary schools participating in Your Europe, Your Say! (YEYS) to help students and teachers prepare for the event. In mid-March EESC member Michael McLoughlin went to Ukraine to meet the students and teachers from Lyceum 49 in Kyiv. Although half of the visit took place in the school basement as bombs and missiles rained on the Ukrainian capital, the spirit of young Ukrainians remained undeterred.

By Michael McLoughlin

Lyceum 49 is a school in central Kyiv very much focussed on the French language and an obvious candidate for participation in Your Europe Your Say. However, it’s possible staff and students had more on their mind than the European Economic and Social Committee on the morning of 16 March. As it happened this morning marked the first missile and drone attacks on Kyiv in about six months following many weekend alerts. Material actually fell on Maidan Square in the centre of the city. 

 The school visit literally began during one of the many air alerts that morning, with students running between the shelter and the classroom. The students, however, were unflappable and actually in good spirits. Starting out in the basement shelter we discussed the possible opportunities for young people in Ukraine in the future, a recurring theme. Naturally the level of political, financial and defence support for Ukraine was a point of interest. 

 After a while we were able to move back to a normal classroom environment, which happened to be adorned with plenty of UK-related material on the walls – it was the day before Saint Patrick’s Day! This actually helped make some visual points about free movement and Schengen. Students naturally wanted to know my views on Ukraine and Kyiv, which were at their best in the spring sunshine. 

 With air raid alerts and attacks in the city centre, it was not a normal day in Ukraine, but unfortunately it wasn’t abnormal either. However, it was a testament to all involved and the spirit of ‘business as usual’ that we had a successful visit and afterwards the city got on with life in the streets, coffee shops and with traders and buskers getting on with life in the same spirit. I would particularly like to thank Alyona Morozova and Oleksandra Balytska for their help and assistance, both of whom, of course, went on to join us for the event in Brussels!

Although research on the gender gap in young people's political preferences is still limited, recent studies suggest that far-right parties in Europe attract substantially more support from young men than from young women, with noticeable differences among countries. In a pessimistic scenario, a deepening divide in political values could affect everyday social relations ─ shaping how people form and maintain relationships, potentially increasing loneliness and making it harder for some to find a partner. EESC Info discussed this trend with Đorđe Milosav, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bergen, whose work focuses on gendered patterns in politics.

Your recent article highlights a significant divergence in far-right support between young men and women. Could you briefly outline the core findings of your research and how this gender gap compares to historical trends in youth political engagement?

In our recent article, we find that far-right parties in Europe are attracting noticeably more support from young men than from young women. In 2024, support among young men in Europe reached just over 21%, compared to about 14% among women of the same age group.

It’s important to note, however, that this gender gap isn’t the same everywhere. When we looked at countries individually, the pattern varied: the gap appears quite large in Spain and Poland for example, more moderate in Germany and Italy, and seems to be nonexistent in Sweden and the Netherlands.

This is an area of very active research, and there’s still a lot to understand. For example, in ongoing work with co-authors, I am exploring whether economic shocks affect young and older men (and women) support for far-right parties differently, and whether the importance young people place on their gender identity in this context plays a role in shaping their political choices.

Beyond just voting numbers, are there specific ideological shifts that you have observed in how young men versus young women interpret far-right narratives? Are there particular issues where this generational and gender divide is most pronounced?

It’s still difficult to draw firm conclusions, as research in this area, specifically focusing on the younger cohorts, is still relatively limited. What we do know for instance is that sexist attitudes are an important factor in explaining support for far-right parties in Spain (see paper here). As men are more likely to have sexist attitudes, they might find far-right parties promoting such stances more appealing. We also know that young women, on average, tend to hold more progressive or liberal views, which may make them less receptive to far-right narratives. A recent study for example points that the gender gap among Generation Z is particularly pronounced on affirmative action issues and anti-discrimination policies such as gender quotas in politics and school reforms for less gender-stereotypical teaching (see paper here).

If this trend persists, what are the long-term consequences that you see, in particular when regarding democratic stability and social cohesion in Europe?

If we take a more pessimistic view, growing differences in attitudes between young men and women could lead to wider social effects. For example, stronger polarisation might make it harder for people to form and maintain relationships, potentially affecting family formation, increasing loneliness, and lowering the overall quality of personal relationships.

Over time, these shifts could also influence broader demographic patterns, such as birth and divorce rates. If these trends become widespread, they could weaken social cohesion which in turn may pose challenges for the long-term health and stability of democratic systems. As research is still developing, much of this remains uncertain.

As academics and members of civil society, we need to approach these issues with care and avoid scapegoating any group in the process.

In your working paper with Hanna Bäck and Emma Renström, you explore the role of male influencers in combating misogyny and reducing intergroup threat. Could male influencers serve as a bridge in digital spaces that currently amplify polarising narratives?

Our initial hunch is that the answer to this question is yes, but our results paint a bit of a bleaker picture. In our working paper, we conducted a survey experiment where participants were shown the same message (an Instagram post) from a hypothetical male influencer, but we varied how his political background was described. What we found is that this background mattered: people were more likely to say they would like or share the post when the influencer was presented as being politically aligned with them. So, left-leaning respondents responded more positively when the influencer was described as left-leaning, and the same pattern held for right-leaning respondents when the influencer was described as right-leaning.

What’s striking is that this happened even though the message itself was identical in all cases. In other words, who delivers the message matters much more than what is being said.

At the same time, we didn’t find evidence that these messages changed people’s underlying misogynistic attitudes. Taken together, I think this hints at a broader point: gender issues are highly politicised today, and messages about them can act as signals of political identity, rather than simply being evaluated on their own terms.

Đorđe Milosav is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the SUCCESS project at the University of Bergen. Previously, he held a postdoctoral position in Political Behaviour at Humboldt University of Berlin and received his PhD in Political Science from Trinity College Dublin. His current work is looking at gendered patterns of political attitudes and behaviour among both voters and politicians in Europe.

Young people are often told their political turn later will come later. But they are the ones who will live longest with the consequences of decisions taken today. When political choices risk causing long-term harm and cannot easily be reversed, democratic safeguards such as intergenerational commissions and age-weighted referendums may be needed to ensure that concerns and interests of young people are not sidelined, says Nicola Mulkeen, Lecturer in Political Philosophy at UK's Newcastle University, in an EESC interview.

Your research highlights the significant risks that ageing demographics pose to democratic processes. Could you explain the specific mechanisms by which an older electorate can systematically disadvantage younger generations?

In ageing democracies, older people make up a larger share of the electorate and they also tend to vote in higher numbers. This gives them more power to shape election outcomes. Politicians are usually most responsive to the groups that are largest and most able to influence public debate. The result is a political system that can become skewed towards the interests of older voters while younger people’s concerns are more easily delayed or ignored. 

This would be less troubling if the decisions made under these conditions were easily reversible. Many are not. If a government delays climate action because the immediate political costs seem too high, younger generations will live with more extreme weather and deeper insecurity. If biodiversity is destroyed, the damage to ecosystems and food systems may be impossible to repair. If a government borrows to avoid present sacrifice, younger people will be left paying the bill through higher taxes, weaker services, and less freedom to respond to problems of their own. When military conscription is imposed, it is the young who are required to train, prepare to fight, and perhaps die.

So, it is not enough to say that young people will have their political turn later. By then the damage might already have been done. Some harms cannot be undone. Others can only be reversed at very great cost. Younger people are therefore not just temporarily less powerful. They are the ones who will live with the consequences the longest when they had the weakest voice.

In your paper, you propose age weighted referendums and intergenerational commissions as a dual mechanism for addressing intergenerational tensions. Could you explain how these solutions could work in practice?

My proposal is aimed at political decisions that may cause significant long-term harm and are difficult to undo. The idea is to create stronger electoral safeguards in exceptional cases where younger and future generations will carry the weight of those decisions.

In practice, the first safeguard would be an intergenerational commission, or commissioners working across government departments. This would be an independent public body made up of experts and youth representatives. Its role would be to identify laws or policies that create serious long-term risks of harm. The aim is to bring these cases out of the ordinary election cycle, where short-term pressures dominate, and to make their long-term implications clearer.

If the commission judged that a proposal created a serious risk of harm or injustice, it could trigger a targeted age-weighted referendum. One example would be a government deciding whether to approve major new oil extraction or delay climate action. In that case, everyone would still vote, but younger people’s votes would carry greater weight because they are the ones most directly exposed to the long-term consequences. The point is to level things up. Younger people are often politically weaker even though they may have more at stake in long-term decisions.

Beyond your proposed reforms, what other policy interventions, whether at EU or national level, do you see as most promising for rebalancing intergenerational equity? Are there examples from member states that you'd highlight as models worth scaling?

Beyond age-weighted referendums and intergenerational commissions, the most promising interventions are those that make long-term thinking part of ordinary democratic decision-making. No single reform can solve the problem. What is needed is a broader approach that improves the political standing of younger people, strengthens legal protections for future generations, and makes governments answerable for the long-term effects of their choices.

Some reforms can easily be introduced. Civic and democratic education is one. If younger people are to participate meaningfully in public life, they need knowledge and institutional support. Expanding youth representation also matters. Introducing youth quotas in legislatures could help address the current imbalance. Judicial review also matters where governments adopt laws that threaten the basic conditions future generations will need, such as climate stability.

There are already useful examples. Wales is often highlighted because its Well-being of Future Generations Act encourages public bodies to consider long-term consequences. At EU level, the appointment of a Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness suggests these questions are receiving more serious attention. Germany’s 2021 Constitutional Court ruling on climate policy is a really important example because it recognised that governments should not be free to pass harmful burdens on to younger and future generations. None of these examples is a complete solution, but they show that democratic systems can be redesigned to take longer-term responsibilities more seriously.

Your work focuses on structural reform, but we have seen that social change also requires a shift in attitudes. What do you see as the most effective ways to build intergenerational solidarity rather than framing this as a zero-sum conflict between age groups?

I think it’s really important not to frame intergenerational fairness as a conflict between the young and the old. The deeper problem is that many political systems are structured for the short term. They respond to immediate pressures and electoral demands more easily than to long-term risks. This means that they often fail to give proper weight to young people. If we want to build intergenerational solidarity, we need to move away from the language of trade-offs.

One of the best ways to do that is to recognise that properly investing in younger people is not a loss for older generations. In ageing societies, younger generations will be central to sustaining the institutions and services on which everyone depends. They will make up a large part of the workforce, support public finances, and provide care. So, investing in education, healthcare, and work opportunities for young people should be seen as a way of strengthening society. It is not about favouring one group over another.

Nicola Mulkeen is a Lecturer in Political Philosophy at Newcastle University. Her work sits at the intersection of politics, philosophy, and economics, with a particular focus on intergenerational justice and institutional reform for younger and future generations.

Long before Erasmus became a household name, the EESC was arguing that Europe’s future depended on its young people. Its 1991 opinion, which advocated youth mobility and informal learning, helped set a course that still shapes EU education policy today. By throwing its support behind early European exchange initiatives, the EESC helped lay the groundwork for what would become Erasmus+, one of the most successful European programmes, which has so far enabled more than 15 million people to study and train abroad, writes EESC member Miroslav Hajnoš.

By Miroslav Hajnoš

In 1991, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted the opinion Youth for Europe (SOC/206). In this opinion, the EESC emphasised the importance of youth mobility, informal education and the active involvement of young people in building Europe. These ideas may sound obvious today, but at the time they represented a strong and necessary push towards a more people-centred European project.

In this opinion, and in the opinions that followed, the Committee played an important role in supporting and legitimising early European initiatives such as Erasmus. In a political environment where not all Member States were convinced of the value of expanding such programmes, this support sent a strong signal to the European Commission. It demonstrated that investing in young people, education and mobility was not only beneficial but necessary for the future of Europe.

The early 1990s were a time of major political and social transformation in Europe, and the Committee was already thinking ahead, identifying key priorities that would later become central pillars of European integration.

The EESC SOC/206 opinion already pointed to a broader vision of Europe.

That vision was simple but powerful. Europe should not be defined only by institutions, legislation or economic cooperation. It should be experienced by its citizens, especially by young people. The Committee therefore supported initiatives that enabled exchanges, cross-border cooperation and voluntary activities. These experiences were seen as essential for fostering mutual understanding, strengthening European identity and preparing young people to actively participate in society. 

Importantly, the Committee also recognised that learning does not happen only in classrooms. It highlighted the value of non-formal and informal education, acknowledging that skills such as adaptability, intercultural communication and civic engagement are often developed outside traditional systems. This perspective was ahead of its time and continues to influence European policies on education and youth today.

Another crucial aspect was inclusiveness. Even in 1991, there was a clear understanding that European programmes should not be limited to a privileged few. The Committee supported measures to ensure that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds could also benefit from mobility and exchange opportunities. This commitment to inclusion remains a cornerstone of EU programmes.

Looking at the impact today, it is clear how important this early direction was. Erasmus+ has become one of the most successful European programmes, contributing to education, social cohesion and a stronger sense of European identity. It has enabled millions of people to study, train and gain experience abroad, shaping generations of Europeans.

In the recent opinion on Erasmus+, led by EESC members Nicoletta Merlo and Katrīna Leitāne, this effort clearly continues. The Committee calls for stronger youth participation, dedicated funding for youth, and more inclusive access, especially for disadvantaged young people. It also emphasises the importance of policy development as a key tool to empower young Europeans and ensure their active role in shaping society. 

From 1991 to today, one thing is clear: youth is not just a topic; it is a strong and essential part of our European civil society. And as the EESC President has said, if civil society is the heart of Europe, then youth is the energy that keeps it beating.

Without the early vision and support of institutions like the EESC, it is difficult to imagine Erasmus in its current form. We would certainly not be speaking about more than 15 million participants who have benefited from it over the years.

This shows that the direction set more than three decades ago was the right one. It also reminds us that strong and forward-looking policy decisions can have a lasting impact. The Europe we are building today stands on these foundations, and that is precisely why we can approach the future with confidence.

In their book 'Kinder – Minderheit ohne Schutz' (Children – A minority without protection), nominated for the 2025 German Non-Fiction Prize, Aladin El‑Mafaalani, Sebastian Kurtenbach and Klaus Peter Strohmeier explore the widening gap between an ageing society and younger generations. Children’s and young people's interests, they argue, carry little political weight and remain inadequately protected. Klaus Peter Strohmeier sets out the case for granting children minority protection status in an interview with EESC Info.

Your book argues that children constitute a 'minority without protection' in an ageing society. Can you give some specific examples of how the current political and economic structures systematically disadvantage children? 

In our society, we witness a structural disregard for children and their families on a daily basis. Modern society is functionally differentiated and individualised. In an adult world geared towards efficiency and functionality, children are viewed as ‘disruptive factors’. 

This has created a demographic and democratic imbalance. Children are a demographic minority without political representation. They themselves have no right to vote, and their parents constitute only a minority among those eligible to vote. Some of them, moreover, have no citizenship and none of the rights that come with it. With half of the electorate being over 53, politics is primarily geared towards the status quo and the interests of older people.

This imbalance also has fiscal implications. A growing proportion of Germany’s federal budget is spent on subsidising pensions, which in turn diverts necessary investment funds away from future-oriented sectors such as education, climate protection and infrastructure.

The interests of children and young people carry no political weight. During the coronavirus pandemic, for example, children were hit hardest with the school closures, even though they had the lowest risk to their health. The introduction of compulsory military service is also currently being negotiated in Germany without consulting young people. 

You argue that parents cannot be trusted proxies for children, much like men historically failed to champion women's rights. Given that the electorate is aging rapidly, what concrete steps would you propose to ensure democracy truly includes the youth?

We propose a three-step approach that goes beyond simply lowering the voting age, with the aim of effectively involving children and young people in our ageing democracy. 

The first step is the establishment of ‘Future Councils’. These would have to be attached to every parliament and consulted prior to political decisions to promote future-oriented policies. A further step is the introduction of a so-called ‘generational clause’, whereby every fundamental political decision must be transparently assessed for its consequences for future generations. A final step is to strengthen local participation. Children and young people should be consulted in their immediate environments, such as their neighbourhoods or schools, and be given genuine opportunities to be heard and to have a say.

You propose introducing formal minority protection status for children. Beyond symbolic recognition, what legal or institutional mechanisms would this entail? How would such protections change decision-making in areas like budget allocation, urban planning, or education policy?

A legal minority protection status for children would go beyond symbolic recognition and the appointment of powerless 'Children's Advocates'. The explicit inclusion of children’s rights in the basic law, for example, would provide judges and politicians with clear legal guidance when weighing up different interests, much like the enshrined equality of women.

In terms of participation in legal proceedings, minority rights could create a legally binding substantive dimension that makes the protection of educational opportunities and natural resources enforceable. 

Protection for minorities would also make it possible to exert a binding influence on the allocation of resources. Through this, resources relevant to the future, such as investment in education, would have to be treated as a priority, rather than being lost in the battle for resources with the older generations. 

Introducing minority protections would be a structural reform, but we have seen that social change also requires a shift in attitudes. What do you see as the most effective ways to build intergenerational solidarity?

Children need adults who care about them; the more, the better. Solidarity between generations cannot grow solely through legislation; it emerges and flourishes through interaction and social relationships. The key here is to mobilise existing potential and create new opportunities.

One idea would be to engage the baby boomer generation. This generation had an exceptionally high birth rate, which could make several experienced adults available as a ‘resource’ for each child. The baby boomer generation possesses enormous social and professional skills, as well as education, good health and time. They can be recruited as personal mentors or mentors for children in childcare centres and schools. Government agencies could, for example, provide targeted information on volunteering opportunities upon retirement and create incentives such as tax-free fees or vouchers. By placing the needs of children at the centre in this way, demographic ageing can become an opportunity.

Another possibility would be the large-scale expansion of community centres in neighbourhoods. Through this, schools and nurseries can become multifunctional hubs within the neighbourhood and the local community, where young and old, children, parents, grandparents and neighbours can meet and support one another. Former professionals from trades or the cultural sector could use their skills to get involved in schools and childcare centres. Children need adults to thrive and develop healthily. The more of them there are, the better it is for the children and for our society.

Klaus Peter Strohmeier, born in 1948, is a sociologist and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the Ruhr University Bochum. He is one of the co-authors of 'Kinder – Minderheit ohne Schutz' (Children – A minority without protection).

Civic education looks very different when it is led by young people themselves. In this interview with EESC Info, European Youth Parliament’s Ali‑Maeve FitzGerald explains how the EYP approaches civic education differently, focusing on participation, practice and peer‑to‑peer learning rather than theory alone.

As a youth-led organisation, you see firsthand how young people's relationship with politics is evolving. What major shifts have you noticed recently, particularly in the level of interest and in the methods that spark meaningful engagement?

I believe that we are seeing a resurgence of young people who want to be involved and actively participate in politics. However, we are also seeing division and polarisation growing amongst young people and political ideologies. 

Social media has made it increasingly easy to mobilise large groups of people, particularly the younger generation, with issues they are deeply passionate about, giving them access to political information beyond your traditional school textbooks. However, we can also see how the echo chambers of polarising opinions on social media can further sow division amongst young people, and the risks of misinformation and disinformation in the growing age of generative AI.

Because of our representation in 40 countries across Europe, our events bring together a huge diversity of young people, opinions, and backgrounds. We are seeing that engagement is increasingly issue-driven, with the youth wanting their actions to have tangible impact, no longer satisfied with just being a part of the conversation.

Because of this, civic spaces like the European Youth Parliament are increasingly vital. We are a non-partisan platform for civic education, intercultural encounters, and the exchange of ideas – run by young people, for young people. Our mission is to inspire and empower a young generation of informed, open-minded, responsible, and active citizens who shape society and drive impact.

Annually, we bring together over 25,000 young people, creating a space where bridges across divides can be built, young people can become informed about the world around them, and how they can take a real seat at the table, and not just be heard. 
 

The approach by the European Youth Parliament goes beyond traditional school curricula by using non-formal learning methods. In your experience, is there a specific 'missing piece' in standard school civic education, and do you have an idea how this could be changed?

I think that the major ‘missing piece’ in standard school civic education is that it remains largely theoretical. Young people learn about political systems, but not how they can play a role in these systems, or, indeed, change them. The model of a classroom, where students sit and listen to a lecture, leaves them disengaged and passive in shaping civic society. 

This is what sets us, the European Youth Parliament, apart. We operate in committees of young people, at each of our 400+ events a year, assigned a key topic or issue in the world today, and are tasked with consensus-building to prepare a resolution of solutions that can be presented to decision makers as the young people's voice for change.

What is often missing in civic education is practical skill-building: how to have constructive debate, how to build consensus with opposing views, and how to navigate complex disagreements and deliberate. These stand as core democratic skills, but not something that can be taught from a textbook. 

Young people need skill-based learning, and this is what we aim to develop at our events. We focus on giving young people the platform they need to develop skills in critical thinking, media literacy, public speaking, and much more. We aim to fill the gap in traditional civic education curricula, by taking the knowledge and skills gained in the classroom into the real world, and equip young people with the skills and tools they need to be active citizens.
 

Peer-to-peer learning is a core strength of the European Youth Parliament. Why do you think young people connect so strongly with learning from their peers? And how can this approach best complement, rather than replace, formal civic education in schools and universities?

Peer-to-peer education is successful because it creates a genuine, relatable, and engaging environment. When you are learning from people your own age, it feels accessible, and the traditional hierarchy of teacher and student is broken down. It allows you to be honest, open, and question your own opinions. It shifts the role: young people are no longer passive, sitting in the back of a classroom, but being active contributors to discussions and decision making, giving them a powerful sense of ownership.

It also is a hugely successful model of integrating intercultural learning. It is no longer theory, but practical: what better way to learn about the history of Europe than to find yourself in a room with young people from every country in Europe, what better way to learn geography than travelling to our events, held in every corner of Europe, in regions you might never otherwise dream of seeing? It brings culture, history, geography, and civic education to life. We are truly by young people, for young people.

Yet, we don’t aim to replace formal civic education, but believe we perfectly complement it. Inside the classroom, you learn foundational knowledge, and we build the bridge by offering an open forum for youth to develop soft skills like leadership, adaptability, communication, and teamwork. We rely on schools and Universities to support our aims by giving young people the fundamental knowledge, helping us in hosting our events, and pushing their students to take part actively in our events in order to translate their knowledge into action.
 

Looking five to ten years ahead, what would 'success' in political and civic education look like to you? Are there specific gaps you'd like to see addressed, whether in school curricula, funding, or how the public perceives these issues?

In the future, I believe that success would be seeing civic education recognised as essential, and not optional, for development. This doesn’t necessarily mean a fundamental restructuring of our education systems, nor do I see that as feasible, but we do need stronger support for organisations like the European Youth Parliament that are already effectively doing this work in non-formal peer-to-peer civic education. We are volunteer-driven, so what we need most of all is stable, long-term funding to achieve our mission, not just short-term, project-based support, so that we can continue to grow and make our work accessible to young people from all backgrounds and corners of Europe.

Accessibility is key. Success in ten years would mean that participation in civic society and active citizenship initiatives like ours would be available to everyone, not limited by geography or socioeconomic status. It would also mean a shift in public perception, when youth engagement can be seen as valuable and constructive, and where young people, in turn, feel heard and represented at all levels. 

Importantly, success would mean stronger partnerships with European institutions, such as the EESC. We see the European Youth Parliament as a bridge, and a platform to connect young people with policymaking spaces. Success for me would be when this bridge is fully recognised and supported, and when young people can not only understand how to influence policy that will shape their futures, but are uplifted and actively given the opportunity to do so.

Ali-Maeve FitzGerald is a member of the European Youth Parliament’s (EYP) International Youth Board of Volunteers, and holds the portfolio for the promotion of sustainability in the EYP network. Ali joined the EYP in Ireland in 2018 and since then she has been volunteering at various events, contributing to youth engagement, policy dialogue, and sustainability initiatives across Europe. Alongside her work in the EYP, she is a research scientist with a focus on women's health and cancer. Ali-Maeve is passionate about empowering young people to engage with scientific, environmental, and societal challenges.

In the last 15 years, average house prices in the EU have more than doubled, while incomes have not kept pace. The housing crisis has hit young adults in cities hardest: in some countries, they have to spend 80% of their median wage just to rent a two-bedroom apartment. This has forced many into living arrangements they would not otherwise choose, writes Marie Hyland, research officer at Eurofound and co-author of Eurofound's report on the housing struggles of Europe's youth.

By Marie Hyland

As highlighted by Eurofound’s recent report, Europe is facing an unprecedented housing affordability crisis, one that disproportionately impacts young people. As housing costs continue to outpace income growth, the dream of independent living is slipping further out of reach for many young people who are, as a result, living for longer in the parental home. The consequences are far-reaching, affecting opportunities for education, employment; decisions around fertility and relationships; as well mental health and well-being. Addressing this crisis is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about securing the future of Europe’s youth and, by extension, the continent’s social and economic stability.

The Scale of the Crisis

Since 2010, average house prices in the EU have surged by 55.4%, while rents have risen by 26.7%. These increases have far outpaced income growth for many groups, creating a gap that is particularly acute for young people. In some EU member states, house prices have more than tripled. Urban centres, where employment opportunities are concentrated, have seen the most dramatic increases in housing costs. For young people, this means that living independently is increasingly unaffordable—even for those in employment.

The situation is further exacerbated by the shift in housing from a basic need to an investment vehicle. Investors and corporations play a dominate role in many urban housing markets, leaving individuals and families competing for a limited supply of affordable homes. The European Commission has recognised the urgency of the issue, creating a dedicated portfolio for housing under Commissioner Dan Jørgensen, establishing the Housing Taskforce and launching the European Affordable Housing Plan. These developments signal a growing political will to address the crisis, but the road ahead remains challenging.

Who Is Most Affected?

Across a range of metrics, young adults are hit hardest by the housing crisis. They are more likely to experience housing insecurity, to be overburdened with housing costs and to live in poorer-quality or overcrowded dwellings compared to older cohorts. 

The housing crisis in Europe is also unevenly distributed across geographic areas—it is most acute in urban centres and tourist hotspots, where demand outstrips supply and prices are driven up by limited space and high demand. Indeed, cities are at the epicentre of the affordability crisis, and, across the EU, young adults are more likely to live in cities due to the concentration of job and education opportunities. In many member states, a young person on a median wage would struggle to find a property to rent or buy in urban areas. For example, in Bulgaria, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, and Spain, over 80% of a young person’s median wage would be required just to rent a standard two-room apartment in an urban centre. Moreover, the price per square metre is significantly higher for smaller properties, making downsizing an ineffective solution to the lack of affordably supply.

Evidence also shows that the crisis is reshaping household formation. Many young adults are staying in the parental home longer than they would prefer, delaying relationships, careers, and family formation. Survey data from Czechia, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden reveal a stark mismatch between young people’s preferred and actual living arrangements. Far more are living with friends, relatives, or parents than would choose to do so, while far fewer are living with partners or alone than wish to be. This mismatch is not just a personal inconvenience—it is linked to negative outcomes such as mental health struggles, career limitations, and delayed parenthood.

Policy Responses and Recommendations

A multifaceted approach is needed to tackle the housing crisis. Key recommendations include:

• Increasing Affordable Housing Supply: In tight housing markets, supply-side solutions—such as building more affordable starter homes—are more effective than demand-side measures such as supports for first-time property buyers. The existing stock of vacant and underused buildings offers considerable untapped potential to increase supply, albeit often requiring significant renovations.
• Regulating Rents and Tenure Security: Rent regulation and policies to increase tenure security must balance the needs of incumbent tenants with those of newcomers, particularly young people.
• Tenure Neutrality in Fiscal Policy: Governments should treat renting and owning equally in fiscal policies to avoid distorting the housing market.
• Youth Participation in Policymaking: Young people should be actively involved in shaping housing policies, including innovative concepts like collaborative housing.

Finally, it is important to avoid creating a fragmented policy landscape, where piecemeal measures conflict or overlap. Instead, a cohesive, long-term strategy is needed to address both the immediate and structural challenges of the housing crisis.

The housing crisis facing Europe’s youth is not insurmountable, but it requires urgent and coordinated action. Policymakers, civil society organisations, and the private sector must work together to increase the supply of affordable, quality housing.

Marie Hyland joined Eurofound as a research officer in the Social Policies unit in 2023. Her research focuses on issues related to housing, the social implications of the green transition and the socioeconomic situations of vulnerable groups. Prior to joining Eurofound, Marie spent several years as an economist at the World Bank, where her research covered women’s employment and economic empowerment, private sector development and the economics of climate change. Marie holds a PhD in Economics from Trinity College Dublin. During her PhD studies, she was a visiting Fulbright scholar at the University of Maryland.

Suicide is the leading cause of death among young people aged 15 to 29 in the World Health Organization European Region, which spans 53 countries across Europe and Central Asia. At the same time, one in seven children and adolescents under 19 lives with a mental health condition, and the numbers are rising. Yet despite this growing burden, one in five countries still lacks a dedicated policy for child and adolescent mental health. In its latest report, the World Health Organization calls for urgent action to strengthen mental health care for young people.

By Jennifer Hall, Ledia Lazeri and Joao Breda, WHO Regional Office for Europe

Mental health is an integral part of our well-being and general health, and impacts on our ability to learn and be part of a community. Yet across the WHO European Region, it is estimated that one in seven children and adolescents live with a mental health condition, and far too many continue to struggle in silence.  

According to WHO’s recent report, Child and youth mental health in the WHO European Region: status and actions to strengthen the quality of care, there is a pressing need to act fast to strengthen mental health supports for children and young people.

Mental health is worsening over time

Since 2010, children and young people aged 0-19 years old living with a mental health condition has increased by one third (34%). Of particular concern is the increase in the percentage of children and young people living with anxiety conditions, which has almost doubled since 2010. Females, older adolescents and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to report negative outcomes. 

Suicide remains a major public health concern

Suicide is the leading cause of death for young people aged 15-29 years old. However, on a positive note, suicide rates among children and young people have decreased since the year 2000. 

Environments are not adequately supporting the mental health and well-being of young people

The environment within which we live profoundly impacts our mental health and well-being. An emotionally supportive  environment can strengthen brain development and social and emotional skills, setting the ground for a child to thrive across their lifespan.

However, environments contain many stressors for today’s youth. Approximately half of children and young people are exposed to adverse childhood experiences (such as abuse, neglect, war), school satisfaction is decreasing over time and one in five report no social support. Online environments also contain potential stressors, including limited regulation, exposure to cyberbullying, and addictive design features.

Countries are not adequately equipped to respond to these growing needs

One in five countries across the WHO European Region lack a policy or plan for child and adolescent mental health, and data on child and adolescent mental health is scarce. 

Despite calls from young people for services to be delivered in community-based settings that are free from stigma and easy to access, child and adolescent mental health services remain primarily based in hospitals and inpatient settings, with one in four countries lacking community-based outpatient services. Only one in three countries report having school-based services.

The workforce is not adequate to meet the population’s increasing needs. For each psychiatrist, there are 76 000 children and adolescents (inclusive of those with and without mental health conditions).

The type of care received varies greatly depending on where a child or young person is based

Existing data show huge variations in the types of treatment received (e.g. medication and psychosocial interventions), the type of service (community-based, hospital-based), the cost of accessing services, and treatment rates between countries.  A child or young person’s access to treatment, and the quality of care they receive, may completely differ depending on where they live.

There is a need for action 

Every child and young person requiring mental health support has the right to access high-quality care. 

WHO Regional Office for Europe is actively working towards this through the WHO European Progamme on Quality of Child and Adolescent Mental Health care, an innovative workstream hosted by the WHO Office on Quality of Care and Patient Safety in Athens in collaboration with the WHO European Mental Health and Well-being team, supported by the Government of the Hellenic Republic. 

Under this workstream, WHO has developed the first WHO quality standards for child and youth mental health, hosted an annual Autumn School for Ministry of Health nominated experts, set up a young researchers forum with over 700 members, and has published over 10 scientific publications. With partners, WHO has also co-developed proposed actions to strengthen quality of child and youth mental health care, some of which are below for consideration by governments: 

• Adopt a “mental health in all policies” approach to ensure that national actions plans and strategies jointly call for higher-quality mental health services. 
• Develop and implement evidence-based standards, protocols, and clinical guidelines to standardize care. 
• Engage young people and communities meaningfully in co-designing services and policies that better meet their needs. 
• Invest in a stronger child and youth mental health workforce.

 A whole-of-society approach to strengthening the quality of child and youth mental health care can foster supportive environments and services that enable children and young people to thrive, contributing to a more resilient population and a better future. Behind every number is a young person with hopes and potential, and the future health and prosperity of our societies depend on how well we respond to their needs and their right to high-quality care.

The WHO report was developed under an innovative WHO Regional Office for Europe workstream dedicated to strengthening quality of child and youth mental health care, hosted by the WHO Athens Office on Quality of care and patient safety in collaboration with the WHO European Mental Health and Well-being team and supported by the Government of Greece. The article authors Jennifer Hall, Ledia Lazeri and Joao Breda are staff members of the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the World Health Organization.

As part of European Youth Week 2026, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) highlighted its long-standing commitment to meaningful youth participation through direct engagement with young people and a range of concrete policy tools designed to strengthen their influence on decision making. 

A key moment of the EESC’s contribution was the interactive breakout session 'Meaningful youth participation in action!', held on 24 April as part of the official programme. The roundtable brought together more than 40 young participants to reflect on how youth engagement can move beyond consultation and lead to tangible impact at local, national and European levels. 

The discussion highlighted concrete tools and pathways developed by the EESC to support youth engagement, including the EESC Youth Test, which integrates youth perspectives into EU legislative processes, and the Youth Delegate to COP initiative, enabling young people to contribute directly to international climate negotiations. Youth organisations are also actively involved in the EESC’s work through platforms such as Your Europe, Your Say!, the Liaison Group, the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, and Fundamental Rights and Rule of Law country visits, as well as through cooperation with youth organisations from EU candidate countries. 

Young leaders and experts already shaping policy shared their experiences during the session, including President of the EESC Youth Group Nicoletta Merlo, former EESC Youth Delegate to COP Sophia Wiegand and youth participation experts Bruno António and Françeska Muço. Discussions focused on access to decision-making spaces, the barriers young people continue to face, and the difference between meaningful and tokenistic participation. Participants underlined that genuine involvement requires early engagement, clear roles, long-term support and visible follow-up. 

Taking place from 24 April to 1 May under the theme 'Solidarity and Fairness', European Youth Week 2026 offered an opportunity to reaffirm that youth participation at the EESC is a core, long-term institutional priority.