Are the debates over the current debt crisis foreboding the collapse of the European construction? Or, on the contrary, are they intensifying the European project as providing opportunities to discuss what we have in common? To answer these questions, we need as much empirical evidences as theoretical reconsiderations. Hence, as a case study, we present an analysis of the Greek fiscal crisis concentrating on the efforts of political actors to communicate the Greek breakdown as a common European issue. By this example, we support the theoretical point that contestation has been a catalyst for creating and maintaining the European public sphere.
The following research questions are formulated:
1. Since when the Greek budgetary situation has been being debated as a common European issue rather than an internal one?
2. Who, and by what arguments, demanded a voice for Europe in this issue? Who, and by what arguments, denied it?
3. What kind of speculations were raised on the impact of the Greek crisis on the European Union?
Our aim is to identify the key participants and to trace their positions in the dispute by conducting computer-aided qualitative text analysis. The dataset is produced by a two step sampling approach. First, an extended keyword search at webpages of the Euractive and Euronews for the 2009-2012 period is conducted to see who took part in the debate. Second, focused keyword search at individual and institutional online profiles is carried out to collect unmediated, direct communications of participants.
It is our design to demonstrate that the intensification of the debate and the emergence of a wealth of various perspectives, interests, and values do as much enrich the European public sphere as create new dangers on the homogeneity of the European project.
