Debating irregular migration in the European Parliament: a ‘parliament without a public’ or the voice of the people?

The European Parliament (EP) has been characterised as a ‘working parliament without public’ rather than ‘debating parliament’. However, this distinction was called into question when irregular migration became sensitive topic and national political parties polarised on policy. Thus, article explores whether one risk resulting from such characterisation – lack of public involvement is raised by EU members in plenary debates issues. In particular, the analysis focuses purpose plenaries investigates audience for speech acts EP qualitative, manual content three shows that MEPs address their speeches to multiple audiences, including other MEPs, groups Commission Council, excluding voters. Speech aimed at officials, together with problem-solving argumentation, support public’. It contributes maintaining communication gap. contrast, speakers legitimate claiming represent common people, be vox populi. concludes challenging role an age rising Euroscepticism populism.