Debating irregular migration in the European Parliament: a ‘parliament without a public’ or the voice of the people?

Krotký, Jan

doi:10.1080/14782804.2022.2086108

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, human security speech acts contain argumentative pitfalls (religious arguments) and elicit grand emotions (Boltanski, 2000). Enhancing emotions in the EP debates might be beneficial for the visibility and legitimacy of the EP as a deliberative forum since it struggles with its technocratic setting (Krotký, 2022; Salvati, 2021). Nevertheless, the observed emotions might actually repel the public.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This situation repeated in the following term. Once the European Commission introduced the CEAS reform 2 in 2016, the EP took a united position toward the reform (Ripoll Servent, 2019) and pushed the legislation forward (Krotký, 2022). However, it was not enough to force the Member States to take action on this reform.…”

Section: The Ep Position and Pitfalls Of Migrant Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Fortress Europe is an insult to the values of the EU”: The legitimation of migrant acceptance in the human security speech acts of Members of the European Parliament

Krotký

2022

European Policy Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars agree that securitized discourses mainly drive migration policy. However, to fully understand the migration discourse, it is necessary to look also at the discourse legitimating the acceptance of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. Namely, how Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) legitimate the potential acceptance of migrants in EU plenary debates within the human security speech acts that prevail in the European Parliament plenary debates. By exploring legitimation categories, I show that human security discourse might remain part of the exclusion process, similarly to other security concepts and discursive strategies. In other words, the results show that in human security speech acts, MEPs evoke the “language of exclusion practices” containing the victimhood trope and building the “hierarchy of vulnerability.” Moreover, MEPs' efforts to legitimize immigration in this way might be counterproductive. In particular, the article discusses whether attempts to elicit grand emotions such as pity or shame helps to attract the audience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Ep Position and Pitfalls Of Migrant Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“Fortress Europe is an insult to the values of the EU”: The legitimation of migrant acceptance in the human security speech acts of Members of the European Parliament

Krotký

2022

European Policy Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even in areas where the Council remains the primary decision-maker (Bressanelli and Chelotti 2019; Trauner and Ripoll Servent 2016), the Parliament's influence has grown in shared and supporting competences. 6 Recent research indicates that in areas related to the handling of illegal migration and asylum, the Parliament has frequently challenged the Council's positions and effectively played a role in shaping the EU's response (Krotký 2023; Maricut 2017). Thirdly, the EP's unique role and direct legitimacy through EU citizens' votes make its voice significant.…”

Section: Exceptionality Of the Epmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than neighbours: Assessing crisis narratives of Nordic-Baltic elites in the context of European Union’s eastern border

Braghiroli,

Hagelin

2024

New Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, the European Union has faced multiple crises that have affected the direction and the nature of the integration process. This study focuses on the challenges posed by the Belarusian-EU border crisis (2021) and the proposed travel restrictions towards Russian citizens (2022) in the context of the Nordic-Baltic EU member states. The study addresses their impact through the double prisms of regionality and level of governance. The study looks at how national elite narratives on borders and the movement of people travel to the supranational context, in this case the European Parliament. While the Parliament is often overlooked in favour of the Council or the Commission, this study regards it as an effective analytical bridge between domestic and supranational decision-making levels. To achieve its empirical goals the study relies on governments’ official communiques, while the parliamentary analysis is based on pre-vote debates and Parliament’s roll-call votes. The article finds that, while the national narratives highlight a growing convergence of governmental narratives in adopting or justifying restrictive bordering measures, the EP debates and votes highlight the relevance of ideology and partisanship when it comes to the issue and the growing significance of the gap between mainstream and non-mainstream forces.

show abstract

Debating irregular migration in the European Parliament: a ‘parliament without a public’ or the voice of the people?

Cited by 2 publications

References 39 publications

“Fortress Europe is an insult to the values of the EU”: The legitimation of migrant acceptance in the human security speech acts of Members of the European Parliament

“Fortress Europe is an insult to the values of the EU”: The legitimation of migrant acceptance in the human security speech acts of Members of the European Parliament

More than neighbours: Assessing crisis narratives of Nordic-Baltic elites in the context of European Union’s eastern border

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About