“Brexit 'flipped' the usual dynamics of party competition on the EU” – interview with Tom Hunter

I've always been interested in communication — I worked in marketing before beginning my academic career — and it struck me that a significant part of the crisis of legitimacy of international organizations (IOs) is really a communication deficit. As a Brit, this was really crystallized during the most consequential political event of my lifetime: the Brexit referendum campaign, in 2016. It struck me that the Leave campaign had a clarity of message that was lacking from the Remain side. This really triggered my interest in how communication shapes the perceived legitimacy of international institutions — and why some actors are so much better at framing complex political realities than others.

You're totally right: the conventional view is that national governments are evasive and opportunistic in the way they present the EU. For instance, they might bash Brussels or avoid talking about European integration altogether because it's a wedge issue that could divide their party internally.

My empirical work, based on analysing hundreds of thousands of EU statements by national leaders, actually finds that governments talk a lot about Europe but do so in ways that are complex, technocratic, and difficult for citizens to understand. With respect to the accusation of opportunism, I find that governments actually rarely blame the EU directly, but they are extensive credit claimers and reluctant to share credit with the EU for issues their citizens care about.

Whilst this picture is indeed more nuanced, it is still problematic from an accountability perspective. The fact that the EU doesn't receive credit for salient issues will make citizens wonder what the EU does for them. Perhaps more worryingly, the technocratic style of many national leaders leaves the floor open for Eurosceptic challengers to frame the debate around Europe — and is doubly problematic when we consider that EU institutions also use complex language in their public communication. 

What was really interesting about the way parties reacted to Brexit is that it 'flipped' the usual dynamics of competition on the EU issue. As Brexit led to chaos in the UK, exiting the Union suddenly appeared less desirable for Eurosceptic parties and you see them moderating their stance on exit. Even today, you don't really see any Eurosceptic party seriously considering the prospect of leaving the EU. Conversely, pro-European parties became much more forceful after Brexit, attacking populist Eurosceptics for their hypocrisy and reaffirming their commitment to the European project in much stronger terms.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine also had a similar triggering effect on enlargement discourse. In research with Natasha Wunsch and Marie-Eve Bélanger, we find that mainstream Europarties became more supportive of enlargement generally — not simply in the case of Ukraine — after the invasion. And again, Eurosceptic parties that had long mobilised opposition to enlargement suddenly started talking less about the issue in their communications. 

Both these examples show how large exogenous shocks can reverse dynamics of party competition that seem incredibly entrenched.

I'm excited about being at the CEE! My work fits neatly at the intersection of two of the CEE’s key focus areas: namely “Europe and the EU” and “Strains on Democratic Representation”. Indeed, globalization and Europeanization have made systems of governance in Europe more complex, and my research shows how democratic accountability is not just threatened by the complexity of these new systems, but also by strategic communication of politicians within them.  

Beyond my existing focus, I am currently taking my research in two new directions. First, I am shifting my focus to rhetoric within the EU’s institutions, most notably at the negotiation table. In a project with Tuuli-Anna Huikuri, for instance, we explore the effect of gender on negotiation styles in the Council of the EU. 

Second, I am increasingly studying the EU through the lens of International Relations – an angle that Sciences Po’s Director Luis Vassy outlined the importance of in a recent op-ed. I am particularly interested in how the EU is viewed and perceived in the emerging powers of the Global South, and recently completed the process of collecting statements about the EU in legislatures in Africa and Asia to help tackle this question.