Page 193 - 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. 193
the political discourse on croatia’s eu accession 193
tation that renders an opinion (more) acceptable by claiming that the
opinion is asserted by an expert.”
In analyzed speeches, the argument from expert opinion is easily
defeasible because of the biases of EU representatives. Their knowledge
and expertise on EU affairs are not in question, because the cited author-
ities are highly positioned representatives with experience in politics.
The question, rather, is exactly how biased those authorities are. They are
certainly not neutral and objective, since they were involved in the nego-
tiation process, and impartiality may be viewed as necessary characteris-
tics of authority. From an epistemological perspective, arguments from
expert opinion are a weak part of the Europhile’s argumentation since,
as Walton emphasized: “Using the appeal to expert opinion as an argu-
ment should not be seen as a substitute for getting factual evidence by
scientific methods of data collection” (2006: 88).
Epistemologically stronger arguments by Europhiles were found in
speeches citing facts, statistics and examples which they frequently used
to point out the benefits of EU membership. Their claims that a better
life, a higher living standard and more job opportunities would follow
from joining the EU were sometimes supported by facts. For instance,
the minister of foreign affairs Vesna Pusić, in an interview for the tele-
vision show “EU 28” (which specifically addressed questions on Croa-
tian EU ascension), explained what the EU means for Croatian citizens:
[…] more money in EU development funds than ever before in the Croa-
tian budget and development projects are what makes for new employment
and a stronger economy. We will get 3.5 billion Euros in the first two years of
membership, 373 million Euros for Agriculture. Every Croatian citizen will
be free to move and work in all the countries of the EU, students will be able
to study abroad. Custom duties and limitations on goods and capital move-
ment will be eliminated.
Although, the possibility of funding becoming available for Croa-
tia is a good argument from consequences, what it lacks is warrant. For
instance, the alleged connection between custom duties and a higher
standard of living is not explained in the above example. In the same in-
terview, V. Pusić talks about a better judiciary system:
When becoming a member of the EU, the courts are not going to be some-
thing that give you stomach aches, courts are going to help you, be at your
service.
Further on, she claims:
The biggest benefit is stability of the state and institutions. In the EU people
will not have to fear for their heritage, for their property, for their lives. The
tation that renders an opinion (more) acceptable by claiming that the
opinion is asserted by an expert.”
In analyzed speeches, the argument from expert opinion is easily
defeasible because of the biases of EU representatives. Their knowledge
and expertise on EU affairs are not in question, because the cited author-
ities are highly positioned representatives with experience in politics.
The question, rather, is exactly how biased those authorities are. They are
certainly not neutral and objective, since they were involved in the nego-
tiation process, and impartiality may be viewed as necessary characteris-
tics of authority. From an epistemological perspective, arguments from
expert opinion are a weak part of the Europhile’s argumentation since,
as Walton emphasized: “Using the appeal to expert opinion as an argu-
ment should not be seen as a substitute for getting factual evidence by
scientific methods of data collection” (2006: 88).
Epistemologically stronger arguments by Europhiles were found in
speeches citing facts, statistics and examples which they frequently used
to point out the benefits of EU membership. Their claims that a better
life, a higher living standard and more job opportunities would follow
from joining the EU were sometimes supported by facts. For instance,
the minister of foreign affairs Vesna Pusić, in an interview for the tele-
vision show “EU 28” (which specifically addressed questions on Croa-
tian EU ascension), explained what the EU means for Croatian citizens:
[…] more money in EU development funds than ever before in the Croa-
tian budget and development projects are what makes for new employment
and a stronger economy. We will get 3.5 billion Euros in the first two years of
membership, 373 million Euros for Agriculture. Every Croatian citizen will
be free to move and work in all the countries of the EU, students will be able
to study abroad. Custom duties and limitations on goods and capital move-
ment will be eliminated.
Although, the possibility of funding becoming available for Croa-
tia is a good argument from consequences, what it lacks is warrant. For
instance, the alleged connection between custom duties and a higher
standard of living is not explained in the above example. In the same in-
terview, V. Pusić talks about a better judiciary system:
When becoming a member of the EU, the courts are not going to be some-
thing that give you stomach aches, courts are going to help you, be at your
service.
Further on, she claims:
The biggest benefit is stability of the state and institutions. In the EU people
will not have to fear for their heritage, for their property, for their lives. The
