ABSTRACT This paper examines the different discourses adopted concerning the climate change-migration nexus within the European Parliament (EP). It uses a critical discourse analysis approach to analyse a specific motion for resolution report, its amendments, and plenary debates, as well as an expert interview with the rapporteur to gain further insights into the political dynamics and challenges involved in the process. An own-initiative report is chosen for the analysis to reveal conflicting d…
Read moreABSTRACT This paper examines the different discourses adopted concerning the climate change-migration nexus within the European Parliament (EP). It uses a critical discourse analysis approach to analyse a specific motion for resolution report, its amendments, and plenary debates, as well as an expert interview with the rapporteur to gain further insights into the political dynamics and challenges involved in the process. An own-initiative report is chosen for the analysis to reveal conflicting discourse-making processes between various political groups within the EP and to better understand the role of the EP in the legislative branch of the European Union. It is found that political ideology plays an influential role. Even though political groups agree on the aims of the report, they constantly debate and use amendments to change content and extent. Therefore, we claimed that political discourses in a parliamentary setting should be analysed by specifically evaluating diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational arguments of discourses.
