EYE in 360°: Is EYE as effective as it seems to be?

Blog post by Celeste Tan Panza

Biannually, thousands of young people travel to Strasbourg for the European Youth Event (EYE), one of the EU’s largest youth events, where participants alike have the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to interact, network and learn in the European Parliament. Its thriving community of a motivated and engaged generation are one of the many aspects of this event that makes it notorious among activists.

I’ve had the chance to attend the EYE twice, and each visit offered a radically different experience. The first time, I arrived as a newcomer to the concept of activism with an urge to simply learn. I was, however, unfamiliar with the pace, overwhelmed by the scale, and still figuring out how to engage meaningfully. When I returned, I came not just more prepared, but more confident and focused, which only pushed me further into the voluntary field. However, this year's anticipated return fell short.

Despite the EYE’s ambition, this year's experience felt highlighted by a lack of organisation and held back by shallow optimism. Regarding disorganization, the booking system for panels and workshops proved ineffective, as anyone could join regardless of prior registration, causing sessions to fill up rapidly. Movement between the Parliament and the Village was unnecessarily complicated, and the line system was poorly managed despite heavy surveillance. As a result, attending back-to-back events in different locations became impractical, forcing many participants to miss their chosen workshops.

Alongside this issue, the structure of the workshops presented a highly idealistic view of the good work the EU is currently undertaking, while downplaying the reality of the situation and the ongoing challenges each project faces. According to participants, pressing questions on topics such as the Ukraine–Russia war, Erasmus programmes, and others were often met with dismissal or, at times, avoidance, with panelists tending to speak around the subjects.

Due to these difficulties, it is hard not to question the general effectiveness of EYE, especially this year's edition. However, despite all of these factors, it remains one of the reasons I continued into the world of activism and participated along with the many colleagues I have worked with in Malta. In fact, my networking circle and friendships only increased, as the core values of EYE were carried through us all no matter which country each of us came from. I even met people from early Erasmus projects.

Furthermore, my experience allowed me to see different perspectives on federalism, observe how cultural differences shape debates, and understand why certain ideas liberal or conservative are received differently across countries. I also noticed the wide range of knowledge participants bring to the roundtables, what inspires them, and what they value or critique about the sessions. EYE provides a rare space where people can speak freely among themselves, share ideas openly, and connect across borders. Ultimately, the event remains a vital platform bridging seasoned activists, young voices, and policymakers, fostering dialogue, understanding, and future collaboration.

In the end, the event remains a prime platform that bridges the gap between seasoned activists, young voices, and policymakers. I hope to watch the EYE continue to improve and grow a synergistic and diverse community where ideas can be exchanged openly, experiences shared authentically, and collaborations formed across borders. Despite its flaws, the EYE has the power to inspire, educate, and empower the next generation of changemakers. By addressing organizational challenges and embracing constructive feedback, it can strengthen its impact, ensuring that future participants leave not only with knowledge and networks but also with a renewed sense of purpose and commitment to making a difference in their communities and beyond.