Abstract Social psychological research exploring the rhetoric of Eurosceptic, right‐wing populist actors and laypeople's argumentation in the polarizing context of Brexit has indicated the emotion‐laden nature of EU‐related issues. However, few studies have explicitly united affective and discursive psychological analyses of these topics. To fill this gap, the present study expands the discursive psychological approach to consider the interplay between affect and discourse in populist argumentation around the EU. The study utilizes qualitative interviews with 31 voters in Finland who supported or did not oppose an EU‐critical statement from a radical right populist party's programme. We identified three key affective‐discursive practices: (1) bitterness towards the undeserving ‘other’ justifying opposition to the EU; (2) national uncertainty mitigating criticism of the EU; and (3) national glory devaluing the EU. This study contributes to social psychological research on affect by demonstrating how rhetorical and discursive resources—particularly national referents, temporality, history—are employed in constructing affect as intertwined with identities and intergroup relations around EU issues. Instead of approaching it as implicit or marginal, this framework enables a thorough consideration of affect in argumentation around political issues, providing an in‐depth understanding of its moral, relational and contextual nuances.
Tormis et al. (2026) studied this question.