Polarisation or accommodation? Explaining the discourse-vote choice gap in the European Parliament

Abstract

The strengthening of Eurosceptic voices in its ranks has put pressure on the European Parliament (EP), increasing the salience of the pro-/anti-EU cleavage. Taking EU enlargement as a test case, we examine how the changed composition of the EP has affected the structure of political conflict in the EP. Drawing on an original dataset that matches 1’250 MEP statements on enlargement in EP debates with their vote choice across 47 subsequent roll-call votes, we investigate MEPs’ legislative behaviour with respect to both discursive positioning and vote choice over the past two EP mandates (2009-2019). Our findings indicate a growing polarisation around enlargement issues: although discursive support for enlargement declines for all party groups, we observe a sorting of MEPs into two distinct camps that represent opposing views. This development is driven primarily by soft Eurosceptics, who become more firm in their rejection of further accessions. These findings lead us to conclude that discursive patterns may act as an early warning sign of an impending Eurosceptic turn at the vote level. We may therefore expect the discursive contagion of Eurosceptic actors found in previous studies (Bélanger & Wunsch 2021) to eventually translate into more consequential legislative outcomes, eroding the EP’s status as the bulwark of pro-European policy-making.