Can online discussions, such as comment sections in articles and blog posts, give a clear insight into citizens’ views on the EU? Pieter de Wilde outlines results of a study on the nature of online discussions about the EU. Using a typology of different types of evaluations of the EU, he notes that the majority of contributions to online discussions are notably Eurosceptic. However, a great many of these contributions simply voice criticism of the EU without advocating any specific reforms. The dominance of this kind of comment – which he terms ‘diffuse Euroscepticism’ – ensures that online discussions offer relatively little information about the kind of EU citizens would like to see

de Wilde, Pieter

LSE Research Online

25/02/2014Online discussions show the depth of Eurosceptic feelingacross Europe, but they tell us very little about the kind ofEU that citizens would like to seeblogs.lse.ac.uk /europpblog/2014/02/25/online-discussions-show-the-depth-of-eurosceptic-feeling-across-europe-but-they-tell-us-very-little-about-the-kind-of-eu-that-citizens-would-like-to-see/Can online discussions, such as comment sections in articles and blog posts, give a clear insight intocitizens’ views on the EU? Pieter de Wilde outlines results of a study on the nature of onlinediscussions about the EU. Using a typology of different types of evaluations of the EU, he notes thatthe majority of contributions to online discussions are notably Eurosceptic. However, a great manyof these contributions simply voice criticism of the EU without advocating any specific reforms. Thedominance of this kind of comment – which he terms ‘diffuse Euroscepticism’ – ensures that onlinediscussions offer relatively little information about the kind of EU citizens would like to see.European Parliament elections are not technically about the question of ‘more or less Europe’because the European Parliament does not have a major say over questions of membership or Treaty revision.However, we find lively online discussions about such constitutional issues over the EU polity during the electioncampaign. The most frequently visited online news platforms throughout Europe provide a large number of storieson European integration and their readers take the opportunity to leave comments about their opinion of the EU. Thevast majority of online discussion contributions criticise the EU in one way or another and complain that the EU isundemocratic. Yet, since no proposals for reforming the union are provided, such ‘diffuse Euroscepticism’ provides amajor challenge to the legitimacy of European integration.Together with my co-authors Asimina Michailidou and Hans-Jörg Trenz, my recently published study on onlinedebates during the European Parliament elections in 12 EU countries assesses this state of affairs. News websitesincreasingly include interactive features, known as Web 2.0, where readers are able to post comments in responseto articles and other readers’ comments. Significant numbers of citizens use this opportunity to comment, and amuch larger number follow these discussions passively. To complement knowledge on the opinion of partypoliticians and electoral campaigns, such user comments contesting the EU polity in direct unsolicited relation tocampaign news stories shed light on evaluations of the European Union.Assessing online comments about the European UnionTo assess online communications, we first use a typology of evaluations of the EU. This incorporates three differentdimensions: views on the principle of integration, views on further integration, and views on the EU’s currentinstitutions. Depending on whether evaluations on each of these dimensions are positive or negative, a typology ofsix different types of evaluation of the EU can be outlined. This ranges from explicitly pro-European (AffirmativeEuropean) views at one end of the scale, to anti-European views at the other. The Table below shows these sixcategories and the note explains briefly what each type of EU evaluation consists of.Table: Typology of evaluations of the EU1/5Note: The Table shows the six ‘types’ of EU evaluation based on whether statements arepositive or negative concerning the principle of integration, the EU’s institutional set-up, andthe integration project (i.e. further integration). The six evaluations are: Affirmative European(positive evaluation of all three dimensions); Status quo (a statement that supportsintegration in principle and the EU’s current institutional set-up, but not further integration);Alter-European (an evaluation that supports future integration, but disapproves of the EU’scurrent institutions); Eurocritical (supports principle of integration, but neither the EU’scurrent institutions nor future integration); Pragmatic (does not support integration, butaccepts the EU’s current institutions); and Anti-European (does not support any integrationor the EU’s institutions). Source: De Wilde and TrenzIn the case of online communications, however, the majority of contributions criticise some aspect of the EU in termsof competences, membership and institutions without reflecting on the principle of integration or possible futuretrajectories. We call this ‘diffuse Euroscepticism’, in the sense that it criticises the EU without making any specificstatement about how it should be changed, or proposing any specific future reform. Yet, very few of these diffuseEurosceptic opinions advocate a complete dissolution of the EU or even that their own country should give upmembership. In that sense, the existence of the EU and our membership of it are taken for granted across Europe.Particularly striking is the fact that negative opinions outnumber positive ones in all EU member states. Thus, thetraditional assumption that some member states are more Europhile while others are more Eurosceptic should bereconsidered, at least when it comes to public opinion as constructed in online debates. Chart 1 below shows thepercentage of online communications in our study which fall under each of the six categories of EU evaluation andthe diffuse Eurosceptic category: together with the justification diffuse Eurosceptic communications provide tosupport their opinion.Chart 1: Evaluations of the EU in online discussions and justifications for ‘diffuse Euroscepticism’2/5Note: The pie chart on the left shows the percentage of online discussion contributionswhich belong to each of the six types of evaluation plus ‘diffuse Euroscepticism’. The bar onthe right shows the proportion of the different justifications which diffuse Euroscepticstatements provide (those justified on the basis of democracy, culture, etc.).As Chart 1 shows, citizens making diffuse Eurosceptic statements primarily do so because they find the EUundemocratic. They argue that their voices are not heard, that they cannot influence what is being decided in the EUand that unelected bureaucrats within EU institutions have too much power. So far, a remarkable consensus acrossEU member states is apparent. In their online arguments European citizens and politicians alike agree that theywant a Europe, but not this Europe – because it is undemocratic.Few offer templates for the kind of Europe they do want, and the ones that do rarely agree with each other. Whilesome advocate less Europe because they do not like the current EU, others want more Europe for the same reason.Some see a solution in reverting back to the EU as a common market with a deletion of all the political integrationand state-like symbolism. Others want to democratise Europe, for instance by directly electing the President of theEuropean Commission or by making the Commission fully accountable to a majority in the European Parliament.The advocates of such changes accept that this democratisation will probably come with a transfer of even morepower to EU institutions.The rising intensity of the debate brings with it a replication of conflicts across different member states. In otherwords, as the EU becomes hotly contested in some member states – because of austerity imposition or bail-outs ofother countries for example – we tend to find similar arguments and even a similar composition of arguments inother member states, even if they are not directly affected. This explains the striking similarity of online discussionsacross member states and the pervasiveness of diffuse Euroscepticism overall. At the same time, rising intensity ofdebate about Europe tends to improve the quality of argumentation. That is, the more citizens engage in discussingEurope online, the more specific they become about what it is about Europe that they dislike, what they do like, andwhich changes might improve the EU. As shown in Chart 2 below, a higher average number of contributions to EUpolity contestation per online article corresponds to a slight decrease in diffuse Euroscepticism.Chart 2: Link between number of comments per online article and the percentage of total comments whichexhibit ‘diffuse Euroscepticism’3/5Note: The bars show the average number of statements/comments per online article for eachcountry, while the line shows the percentage of those statements which fall under the‘diffuse Eurosceptic’ category.If political parties campaigning during the upcoming European Parliament elections are interested in representingthe will of Europe’s citizens on the issue of ‘more or less Europe’ and look online to find out what citizens want, theyface a daunting task. The online citizens’ voice is highly critical of the status quo, without giving much indication as tothe desired road ahead. Underlying this diffuse Euroscepticism is a sense of exclusion and disenfranchisement. Theonly thing making the life of politicians with such intentions easier is the uniform voice of online citizens acrossmember states.If such party politicians have counterparts in other member states with a similar desire for reforming the EU basedon public opinion, online debates indicate that they should find it relatively easy to find a common agenda tocampaign upon. But that any reform will actually succeed in making Europe’s citizens more satisfied with the Unionis highly unlikely. At least, we do not learn from following online discussions what such a reform should look like.Please read our comments policy before commenting .Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, norof the London School of Economics.Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1gzmbTZ4/5 _________________________________About the authorPieter de Wilde – WZB Berlin Social Science CenterPieter de Wilde is Senior Researcher at the WZB Berlin Social Science Center in the Department ofGlobal Governance. After studying political science at the University of Amsterdam, he conductedhis PhD at ARENA, Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo on the politicization ofEuropean integration.5/5

Online discussions show the depth of Eurosceptic feeling across Europe, but they tell us very little about the kind of EU that citizens would like to see

Online discussions show the depth of Eurosceptic feeling across Europe, but they tell us very little about the kind of EU that citizens would like to see

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online