Abstract
Crises, as critical moments in the process of European integration, are particularly conducive to the increased politicisation of the European Union (EU) and its contestation. The year 2015 saw the peaks of the Greek and the refugee crises, the two crises that put the two flagships of the European project—the Euro and the Schengen zone—into imminent peril, causing a prolonged EU legitimacy crisis. Building on the literature that considers Euroscepticism as a context-dependent and discursive phenomenon, this study analyses Facebook debates that emerged in response to the Greek and refugee crises, trying to identify how the EU was evaluated and how these evaluations were justified. To answer this question, this study involved the qualitative content analysis of over 7000 Facebook comments related to the Greek and migration crises published in 2015 on the pages of the European Parliament and the European Commission. Contrary to the literature that explains popular Euroscepticism by utilitarian or cultural factors, the findings of this study show that the most recurrent justification for negative EU polity evaluations is the lack of democratic credentials. Furthermore, the commentators mostly assessed the EU’s current set-up and, to a much lesser extent, the principle and the future of European integration. Moreover, the Facebook public extensively commented on the level of inclusiveness, particularly bemoaning the lack of inclusiveness of “ordinary” people in EU decision making. Nevertheless, the commentators frequently referred to themselves as “we Europeans” or “we people”, opposing themselves to EU, national, or financial “elites”. Despite its populist elements, this sense of “we-ness” incepted in social media suggests the capacity of transnational online discussion to foster European digital demos.
Highlights
The European Union has perpetually been a matter of conflicting visions on the design and competences of its institutions, its membership, and occasionally the very necessity of this kind of transnational arrangement
This section investigates how the European Union (EU) was evaluated in terms of its principle of integration, its current set-up, and the future of integration and what justifications for these evaluations were put forward by analysing Facebook debates that emerged in the context of the third Greek bailout crisis and the migration crisis
The bottom-up approach employed in this study paints a better informed and detailed picture of the way the EU was contested among ordinary citizens in the context of the Greek crisis and the refugee crisis, which are considered existential for the process of European integration
Summary
The European Union has perpetually been a matter of conflicting visions on the design and competences of its institutions, its membership, and occasionally the very necessity of this kind of transnational arrangement. The EU is meant to tackle the economic and political challenges of globalisation, the process of European integration is increasingly perceived by EU constituencies as a generator of problems for their nation-states and them personally. The EU is losing power to create the popular attachment as the appeal of its foundational myth based primarily on peace is no longer attractive to citizens who have only experienced peace and personal freedoms [4]. Due to a series of economic, political, and security predicaments experienced over the previous decade, directly or indirectly involving EU policies and institutions, citizens have become more critical towards the EU and started questioning its operational modes and policy choices [5–7]. As evidenced in the literature, the responsibility for sharp economic recession and high levels of unemployment in the Eurozone countries was frequently attributed to the EU [10], fostering the politicisation of European integration [11]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
