European Parliament Elections and the mainstreaming of Euroscepticism in the Dutch Press

The Maastricht Treaty has been called a turning point in European integration, enlarging the scope of the integration project, while at the same time signalling an end to the so-called ‘permissive consensus’. Since ‘Maastricht’, Euroscepticism – often equated with opposition towards the EU – is widely believed to have become part and parcel of politics across the EU. In this context, events such as the Brexit referendum and European Parliament elections provide an opportunity for Eurosceptic movements across Europe to politicise European integration, with media playing an essential role by providing society with the possibility to debate, influence and criticise political deliberations and policymaking. Yet, despite the growing body of literature on Euroscepticism and a similar increase in research on media coverage of EU affairs, there has been comparatively less dedicated research that brings together these two strands of research. I engage with this topic through a qualitative content analysis of politicisation through Euroscepticism in major Dutch newspapers. The focus will be on varieties of Euroscepticism and opposition to the EU as present in mediated debates in the context of the 2009, 2014 and 2019 European Parliament elections. The Netherlands is a good example of a country where European integration has become subject to an increasingly critical debate. During the 1991 intergovernmental conference the Dutch government proposed a far-reaching blueprint for a federal Europe. Yet, 14 years later, on 1 June 2005, Dutch citizens overwhelmingly voted against the Constitutional Treaty, partly due to increased dissatisfaction with the pace and extent of European integration. During the period from 2009 to 2019 there has been an increase of Eurosceptic Members of European Parliament. In addition, the EU was confronted with several crises, in particular the Eurozone crisis, the migration crisis and Brexit. Focussing on the elections during this period, I will present new data from an ongoing project that distinguishes between rejectionist positions and critical positions that can be seen as part and parcel of normal politics is essential. I introduce a four-fold typology: support for the current state of European integration; criticism towards (elements of) EU policies or its institutional design often accompanied by alternative proposals, but essentially is supportive of the EU and European integration (‘Euroalternativism’); soft Euroscepticism, rejecting the current state of European integration for being too supranational; and hard Euroscepticism, entailing a rejection of European integration.