Page 191 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 191
the political discourse on croatia’s eu accession 191
Europhobes Europhiles
We have had bad experiences in joining big I don`t want to be cruel, but if we do not be-
unions. Disintegration of such unions al- come a member of EU there won’t be any
ways ends in bloodshed and Croatia is always pensions. (V. Pusić, HNS)
a part of it. It has happened with Yugoslavia,
Austro-Hungarian empire (D. Srb, HSP)
The EU is going to exploit our natural re- Without the EU our credit rating is going to
sources, take our water – which is going to fall, and there will be no economic prospect
be worthier than oil in a few years – and we for us. (V. Pusić, HNS)
are going to be left with nothing (M. Fran-
cisković, representative of civil organization
“Be brave”)
Croatia is going to be stepped upon all over, There is no other alternative for Croatia, we
and we are going to be a worthless European can only stay in the Balkan (Z. Milanović,
province (M. Bošnjak, representative of civil prime minister)
organization “EU – No, thank you”)
Arguments presented in the speeches of both supporters and oppo-
nents to the EU were weak, fallacious and regularly overlooked other
alternatives (The EU is the only possible solution according to supporters
of the EU; otherwise we are going to suffer, be poor, without pensions and
prospect. If we become an EU member, we are going to lose our independ-
ence, language and identity, according to EU opponets.) It is not implau-
sible that appeals to fear may have caused a negative attitude toward the
EU referendum in general; less than 50 % of Croatian citizens voted in
the referendum. Appeals to fear then were a dominant argumentation
strategy for both Europhobes and Europhiles, which in turn caused the
disapproval of many human rights activists. Željko Puhovski, one of the
founders and presidents of the Croatian Helsinki Committee conclud-
ed at the end of the referendum: “This is a good result for the EU. It is
a shame that it was not reached in democratic way.”(Večernji list, Janu-
ary 23 2012)
3.2.1. Preferred Types of Argument in the Speeches of Europhiles
Argumentation in the speeches of Europhobes and Europhiles
showed some differences in the choice of arguments. Supporters of the
EU (such as the Prime Minister, government members and the presi-
dent) frequently used the argument from expert opinion which is a spe-
cies of the argument from authority. Rieke & Sillars (2000: 123) ex-
plain that “even persons of high credibility frequently use the credibil-
ity of others to argue a claim. In argument from authority you argue
Europhobes Europhiles
We have had bad experiences in joining big I don`t want to be cruel, but if we do not be-
unions. Disintegration of such unions al- come a member of EU there won’t be any
ways ends in bloodshed and Croatia is always pensions. (V. Pusić, HNS)
a part of it. It has happened with Yugoslavia,
Austro-Hungarian empire (D. Srb, HSP)
The EU is going to exploit our natural re- Without the EU our credit rating is going to
sources, take our water – which is going to fall, and there will be no economic prospect
be worthier than oil in a few years – and we for us. (V. Pusić, HNS)
are going to be left with nothing (M. Fran-
cisković, representative of civil organization
“Be brave”)
Croatia is going to be stepped upon all over, There is no other alternative for Croatia, we
and we are going to be a worthless European can only stay in the Balkan (Z. Milanović,
province (M. Bošnjak, representative of civil prime minister)
organization “EU – No, thank you”)
Arguments presented in the speeches of both supporters and oppo-
nents to the EU were weak, fallacious and regularly overlooked other
alternatives (The EU is the only possible solution according to supporters
of the EU; otherwise we are going to suffer, be poor, without pensions and
prospect. If we become an EU member, we are going to lose our independ-
ence, language and identity, according to EU opponets.) It is not implau-
sible that appeals to fear may have caused a negative attitude toward the
EU referendum in general; less than 50 % of Croatian citizens voted in
the referendum. Appeals to fear then were a dominant argumentation
strategy for both Europhobes and Europhiles, which in turn caused the
disapproval of many human rights activists. Željko Puhovski, one of the
founders and presidents of the Croatian Helsinki Committee conclud-
ed at the end of the referendum: “This is a good result for the EU. It is
a shame that it was not reached in democratic way.”(Večernji list, Janu-
ary 23 2012)
3.2.1. Preferred Types of Argument in the Speeches of Europhiles
Argumentation in the speeches of Europhobes and Europhiles
showed some differences in the choice of arguments. Supporters of the
EU (such as the Prime Minister, government members and the presi-
dent) frequently used the argument from expert opinion which is a spe-
cies of the argument from authority. Rieke & Sillars (2000: 123) ex-
plain that “even persons of high credibility frequently use the credibil-
ity of others to argue a claim. In argument from authority you argue
