Update
Auditing the voter register: purpose, impact, and where we a...
CRTA+ Voter register audit: only 4 of 69 checks can be performed under current data access CRTA̵...
As the arrival of the European Parliament fact-finding mission to Belgrade (22–24 January) approached, the domestic public scene - from the officials to pro-government media - treated it less as an official mission and more as an “incursion” and a political provocation. The discourse was dominated by insults, delegitimisation, and openly hostile rhetoric toward MEPs, especially the EP rapporteur for Serbia, Tonino Picula.
Following the MEPs first day of activities, the highest Serbian officials continued in the same accusatory tone. After the MEPs visit to Novi Sad, Parliament Speaker Ana Brnabić accused the delegation of meeting with individuals who planned a military coup in Serbia and the assassination of President Vučić.
Following the MEPs first day of activities, the highest Serbian officials continued in the same accusatory tone. After the MEPs visit to Novi Sad, Parliament Speaker Ana Brnabić accused the delegation of meeting with individuals who planned a military coup in Serbia and the assassination of President Vučić.
When “unannounced” really means “uninvited”
“Not unannounced, but uninvited” became the key frame. The Speaker of the National Assembly, Ana Brnabić, used her parliamentary platform to relay this message:
“This is disrespect toward this Parliament, disrespect toward this country, and disrespect toward our people and our citizens.”
Not only that, this messaging was pushed through the media and her official X account. Within this narrative, MEPs were portrayed as actors who place themselves above the state, disregard protocol, and expect to be received “whenever it suits them.” Brnabić ironically remarked that Picula is “one of 720 MEPs” and that it is quite enough for him to meet with “some of the 250” members of the Serbian Parliament - “according to the level he represents.”
“This is disrespect toward this Parliament, disrespect toward this country, and disrespect toward our people and our citizens.”
Not only that, this messaging was pushed through the media and her official X account. Within this narrative, MEPs were portrayed as actors who place themselves above the state, disregard protocol, and expect to be received “whenever it suits them.” Brnabić ironically remarked that Picula is “one of 720 MEPs” and that it is quite enough for him to meet with “some of the 250” members of the Serbian Parliament - “according to the level he represents.”
A litmus test called “haters of Serbia”
A second, even more aggressive layer of messaging concerned the moral and political disqualification of the delegation itself. President Vučić labelled the MEPs as “haters of Serbia” and insisted that “no one invited them,” but that they “decided to come on their own”. He particularly singled out the Croatian members of the delegation, stating that he “serves only the Serbian people” and that he has “never served the Ustashas , nor will he ever.”
In this way, the visit of the EP delegation was shifted in domestic portrayal from the sphere of institutional communication into an emotional-national frame, where criticism of the authorities is equated with hostility toward the state.
Pro-government media and officials further personalised the attack on Tonino Picula, portraying him as a symbol of an “anti-Serb” Europe and an instrument of Croatia’s strategic interests. Brnabić went a step further, claiming that the European Parliament needs “blockaders” from the former government who would, as she said, agree with its three “facts”: that Kosovo is an independent state; that genocide was committed in Srebrenica; and that Serbia carried out a “Greater-Serbian aggression” against Croatia. The message was clear: the EP mission has nothing to do with “fact-finding,” but is allegedly a political project to support opponents of the authorities and an “undemocratic change of government.”
In the same tone, ex BIA Chief and the President of the Russian Historical Society in Serbia Aleksandar Vulin called Picula an “Ustasha” on Informer TV and presented his appointment as proof that the EU “does not want Serbia,” regardless of Serbia’s “humiliation” in the accession process. Such statements showed that European institutions are presented in the domestic space not as partners, but as judges and adversaries.
In this way, the visit of the EP delegation was shifted in domestic portrayal from the sphere of institutional communication into an emotional-national frame, where criticism of the authorities is equated with hostility toward the state.
Pro-government media and officials further personalised the attack on Tonino Picula, portraying him as a symbol of an “anti-Serb” Europe and an instrument of Croatia’s strategic interests. Brnabić went a step further, claiming that the European Parliament needs “blockaders” from the former government who would, as she said, agree with its three “facts”: that Kosovo is an independent state; that genocide was committed in Srebrenica; and that Serbia carried out a “Greater-Serbian aggression” against Croatia. The message was clear: the EP mission has nothing to do with “fact-finding,” but is allegedly a political project to support opponents of the authorities and an “undemocratic change of government.”
In the same tone, ex BIA Chief and the President of the Russian Historical Society in Serbia Aleksandar Vulin called Picula an “Ustasha” on Informer TV and presented his appointment as proof that the EU “does not want Serbia,” regardless of Serbia’s “humiliation” in the accession process. Such statements showed that European institutions are presented in the domestic space not as partners, but as judges and adversaries.
Instrumentalising remembrance
A third front was opened through symbolic manipulation of remembrance. Ahead of the delegation’s arrival, an exhibition was set up in the central hall of the National Assembly to mark the eightieth anniversary of the liberation of the Jasenovac camp system, alongside the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust.
Pro-government media reported claims - most notably by Brnabić - that the delegation had allegedly “officially requested” not to pass through the central hall due to the “sentiments” of certain MEPs, with Picula and Davor Ivo Štir named as the problematic figures (along with additional insinuations about Štir’s family background). When the MEPs nevertheless visited the exhibition, Brnabić attacked them for doing so “only after the first meeting,” with a mocking comment that they “felt awkward enough and sufficiently ashamed” to avoid it earlier.
Deputy Speaker Marina Raguš said ruling coalition MPs met with the European Parliament delegation only after MEPs visited the Jasenovac exhibition in the National Assembly lobby. She added that the delegation shortened the meeting, citing other commitments, which she described as disrespectful and something she had not encountered before in her political career.
Picula’s aide, Gloria Mage Gospić, denied that anyone from the delegation had asked to bypass the exhibition, describing the accusations as a manipulative attempt to discredit the European Parliament mission. Yet this denial remained outside the main stream of pro-government reporting, while the accusations, labels, and political qualifications circulated for days.
Taken together, the way the visit of the EP delegation was described by the highest officials and aligned media reveals a pattern: an external actor is presented as an uninvited intruder, and criticism of the authorities as an attack on the state. The result is not only a sharpening of tone toward the European Parliament, but also a message to the domestic public that institutional dialogue with European partners is undesirable when it comes with uncomfortable questions - and that “patriotism” is measured by the willingness to turn such dialogue into a public confrontation.
Pro-government media reported claims - most notably by Brnabić - that the delegation had allegedly “officially requested” not to pass through the central hall due to the “sentiments” of certain MEPs, with Picula and Davor Ivo Štir named as the problematic figures (along with additional insinuations about Štir’s family background). When the MEPs nevertheless visited the exhibition, Brnabić attacked them for doing so “only after the first meeting,” with a mocking comment that they “felt awkward enough and sufficiently ashamed” to avoid it earlier.
Deputy Speaker Marina Raguš said ruling coalition MPs met with the European Parliament delegation only after MEPs visited the Jasenovac exhibition in the National Assembly lobby. She added that the delegation shortened the meeting, citing other commitments, which she described as disrespectful and something she had not encountered before in her political career.
Picula’s aide, Gloria Mage Gospić, denied that anyone from the delegation had asked to bypass the exhibition, describing the accusations as a manipulative attempt to discredit the European Parliament mission. Yet this denial remained outside the main stream of pro-government reporting, while the accusations, labels, and political qualifications circulated for days.
Taken together, the way the visit of the EP delegation was described by the highest officials and aligned media reveals a pattern: an external actor is presented as an uninvited intruder, and criticism of the authorities as an attack on the state. The result is not only a sharpening of tone toward the European Parliament, but also a message to the domestic public that institutional dialogue with European partners is undesirable when it comes with uncomfortable questions - and that “patriotism” is measured by the willingness to turn such dialogue into a public confrontation.
