Lisbon Class Divide

DJDC

An interesting article from http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1233:

The Irish ‘no’ – like the 2005 French ‘non’ – shows a clear poor/rich and urban/rural divide. Working-class and rural voters are systematically voting against further European integration. European leaders should take note.



Like many of my compatriots, I spent Friday evening in a pub. In my case the pub was in the heart of France’s beautiful Chartreuse region, and it was full to the brim of French and Dutch football supporters, the latter increasingly rambunctious as the evening wore on. It was a good-natured and very European occasion, with the local children, mine included, responding to Dutch singing with a spirited version of La Marseilleise. It was also a highly symbolic one, at least to this Irishman, bringing together citizens of all three countries to have voted no to the latest round of European institutional changes.

At first sight the French no vote has little in common with the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty. In France the scaremongers said that further integration would lead to a fiscal race to the bottom, and place France's liberal abortion laws in jeopardy. In Ireland the scaremongers said that further integration would lead to a fiscal race to the top, and the imposition of liberal abortion laws on what remains a largely Catholic country. And yet there are striking socio-economic similarities between the two votes that Europe's politicians will disregard at their peril.

A glance at the electoral map suffices to confirm what earlier opinion polls had indicated: the Irish vote divided along class lines in a stark and disturbing fashion. In the most affluent constituencies of Dublin, such as Dun Laoghaire, where even a modest home can cost upwards of €1 million (although that is changing), 60% or more voted for the treaty. In working class areas of the city, it was the no vote which scored in excess of 60%. Brouard and Tiberj (2006) show that precisely the same division between rich and poor, or the skilled and unskilled, can be discerned in the French 2005 vote.

There are at least two ways of interpreting such patterns. The first would hold that well educated voters are more politically sophisticated and better able to understand the issues involved in a complex amendment to the institutional underpinnings of the European Union. The second interpretation is that, on the contrary, both rich and poor are capable of correctly discerning where their economic interests lie, and vote accordingly. The argument would be that globalisation generally, and European integration more narrowly, has overwhelmingly favoured skilled workers, at least in affluent countries such as France, Ireland and the Netherlands. Unskilled workers, by contrast, feel under threat from Romanian (or Asian) competition, or immigration from Eastern Europe and further afield. And while those of us who are more fortunate might regret it, it is hardly surprising that -- in accordance with Heckscher-Ohlin logic -- they vote accordingly.

Unbelievably, given the importance of the vote, there were no exit polls taken which might give us an indication of why those who voted no did so. But I have to say that my bet is that the gap between middle-class and working-class voting patterns has a lot more to do with different interests, real or perceived, than with supposed differences in political sophistication. To a large extent this prior is based on the work of Anna Maria Mayda and Dani Rodrik, and Richard Sinnott and myself, on the determinants of attitudes towards globalisation across countries. That work has shown that while the unskilled are more hostile than the skilled to trade and immigration in rich countries, in poor countries it is the unskilled who are the most pro-globalisation -- which seems difficult to reconcile with the argument that the less well educated simply cannot be expected to understand the benefits of international economic integration. If this interpretation is correct, then the Irish referendum result, in one of the most pro-European members of the Union, should serve as a wake-up call to politicians that if they want to maintain the benefits of open international markets, as I do, they will simply have to take more notice of the concerns of those who are being left behind.

Of course, I wouldn't want to claim that this referendum result was simply about the economic interests of different groups of voters. The greatest difficulty facing the pro-treaty side was in articulating a compelling reason to vote yes, when the European Union has clearly not collapsed in the wake of the 2005 and 2007 enlargements. Public mistrust of politicians, in Ireland as in France, meant that assurances that the treaty really was necessary, all appearances to the contrary, were always going to fall on a great many deaf ears. As in the Netherlands, there was surely a fear that as a small country Ireland stood to lose by more than France or Germany in giving up its veto -- and this impression is bound to grow in the weeks ahead, if as seems likely Europe's leaders attempt to ignore this Irish roadblock to their institutional ambitions on the grounds that Ireland is…small. Some voters dislike the way that the French and Dutch referendum results were essentially ignored by Europe’s leadership. And so on.

My claim is simply that economic interests were one factor among many, and should not be ignored. If working-class and rural voters are systematically voting against further European integration, that is something which Europe's political leadership will need to listen to. The fact that they feel this way also explains why so many of my French neighbours and friends are congratulating me this weekend on my compatriots’ vote. I am of course accepting their expressions of solidarity gratefully, without necessarily letting them know that had I been living in Ireland this year, I would have voted yes. The way things stand this weekend, Ireland is going to need all the friends it can get.

mike65

What struck me was not so much the Socio-Economic aspect but an arguably related matter - Sinn Fein. If you look at where the NO vote was at its strongest, its where the SF party is at its strongest. Places such as Donegal (both), Kerry (esp North), Mid-West Dublin, Louth, Sligo/Leitrim etc. FF/FG/Lab should take note. Not only cos they clearly know how to get the vote out, but that SF can now tap into a "euro-skeptic lite" constituency in the next local/euro and general elections when this issue will still be very much alive.

Mike.

justfortherecor

Agree completely with above.

Their populist approach among the working class in the build up to the vote was very effective. However, like most SF politics, behind the effective rhetoric there is very little substance or proper political mandate. 'Able to negotiate a better deal' in Europe?

How wonderfully vague.

Kovik

justfortherecor wrote: »

Agree completely with above.

Their populist approach among the working class in the build up to the vote was very effective. However, like most SF politics, behind the effective rhetoric there is very little substance or proper political mandate. 'Able to negotiate a better deal' in Europe?

How wonderfully vague.

Not to mention, should Cowen come back from Europe with a declaration ruling out all the vague concerns SF raised during the campaign, we can pretty much rest assured that this is not the vague "better deal" they were seeking.

DJDC

Forgetting about SF for the moment because they are just a typical working-class/socialist party who appeal to low earners/the low skilled. What most interests me is the idea that globalisation only benefits the highly skilled and the wealthy status quo in developed countries, creating a large number of worse-off disenchanted voters who haven’t benefited from this trend. These people are afraid of the idea of a level playing field where immigrants are entitled to the same benefits and opportunities that they have been given up to now. They are also at the coal face of integration as the immigrants invariably move into working class cheaper areas to live leading to tension between the two groups.

These working class voters in France, NL, GB, Germany, Ireland etc are all against further EU integration. Of course, the EU tried to avoid this by ratifying the treaty through parliaments and hoping Ireland would buck the trend of the working class heavily voting against further integration. As shown, this trend wasn’t broken and will not be broken until the EU allays concerns that Lisbon and a strong EU will not lead to increased immigration. For me that was one of the most disappointing aspects of the Yes campaign. They were too afraid of touching the immigration issue they didn’t reassure working class voters that Lisbon would not affect us at all in this regard.

SkepticOne

DJDC wrote: »

What most interests me is the idea that globalisation only benefits the highly skilled and the wealthy status quo in developed countries, creating a large number of worse-off disenchanted voters who haven’t benefited from this trend.

On the globalisation note, where were the anti-globalists in this campaign? Surely here is an issue that they could rally around.

irish_bob

SkepticOne wrote: »

On the globalisation note, where were the anti-globalists in this campaign? Surely here is an issue that they could rally around.

richard boyd barrett is a prominent anti globalist

brianthebard

mike65 wrote: »

What struck me was not so much the Socio-Economic aspect but an arguably related matter - Sinn Fein. If you look at where the NO vote was at its strongest, its where the SF party is at its strongest. Places such as Donegal (both), Kerry (esp North), Mid-West Dublin, Louth, Sligo/Leitrim etc. FF/FG/Lab should take note. Not only cos they clearly know how to get the vote out, but that SF can now tap into a "euro-skeptic lite" constituency in the next local/euro and general elections when this issue will still be very much alive.

Mike.

SF aren't that popular in sligo/leitrim, there are pockets of supporters more than anything else. I got the impression that newspapers wanted to blame ignorant working class people for the fall of a treaty that might have benefitted the middle classes.

daisyplant

Sinn Fein aren't particularly popular anywhere in the country compared to the main parties, hense their abismal performance in the election last year. I think you would have been looking at a far higher no vote if Sinn Fein had not been involved at all. Many people vote yes, and said so on many forums, because Sinn Fein were on the no side.

marco_polo

daisyplant wrote: »

Sinn Fein aren't particularly popular anywhere in the country compared to the main parties, hense their abismal performance in the election last year. I think you would have been looking at a far higher no vote if Sinn Fein had not been involved at all. Many people vote yes, and said so on many forums, because Sinn Fein were on the no side.

That is a pretty big assumption to make.

SkepticOne wrote: »

On the globalisation note, where were the anti-globalists in this campaign? Surely here is an issue that they could rally around.

Perhaps because it was irrelevant to the debate?

daisyplant

Is not an assumption Marco, Its been stated many times here and on other forums! Also heard it from friends, family, taxi drivers:D, etc etc etc....

ateam

brianthebard wrote: »

SF aren't that popular in sligo/leitrim, there are pockets of supporters more than anything else. I got the impression that newspapers wanted to blame ignorant working class people for the fall of a treaty that might have benefitted the middle classes.

Some of the voters were ignorant believing that the Lisbon Treaty would lead to conscription.

lisbon_lions

Agree with the OP that Sinn Fein are not as popular as the mainstream parties in most parts of Ireland. What they are good at however is the ability to tap into the conscience of the voter and mobilise a campaign with great speed that leaves the mainstream parties left for dead.

marco_polo

daisyplant wrote: »

Sinn Fein aren't particularly popular anywhere in the country compared to the main parties, hense their abismal performance in the election last year. I think you would have been looking at a far higher no vote if Sinn Fein had not been involved at all. Many people vote yes, and said so on many forums, because Sinn Fein were on the no side.

daisyplant wrote: »

Is not an assumption Marco, Its been stated many times here and on other forums! Also heard it from friends, family, taxi drivers, etc etc etc....

Ok you win .

Here is my theory. There is a reasonable chance that people who voted yes tend to be pro european and it is unsurprising that the would vote the opposite way to an anti-europe party like as Sinn Fein. (I know they were claiming otherwise during the campaign, but it is easy thing to say. Their history on European matters suggests otherwise).