“This”:http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1233 seems to me to be the most interesting analysis I’ve read so far.
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. …
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. …
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.
Update: The Eurobarometer report on a flash survey they did immediately post-referendum is available at “Irishelection.com”:http://www.irishelection.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/fl_245_en.pdf. Thanks to Simon in comments for the pointer.
{ 24 comments }
toby 06.20.08 at 4:30 pm
Those constituencies south of the Liffey were the only ones which resisted Charlie Haughey’s anti-Abortion referendum in 1983. At the time we thought that Yes victory was an absolute disaster; now we tend to see it as one of Catholic Ireland’s last successful stands against modernity, along with the defeat of Garret Fitzgerald’s Divorce referendum a few years later.
So the wheel does turn; though not without some pushing.
The other point is that Ireland is “pro-European” but also one with the second-highest “national” as against “European” identity. The highest national identity is Britain, then you get into the recent entrants. The highest European identities are among the original Six. Poll was in the Sunday Times.
That suggests that the Irish are pragmatically for “Europe” but also have a streak of chauvinism that can only be ignored at peril.
c.l. ball 06.20.08 at 4:47 pm
Are there any good public opinion surveys (i.e., surveys that attempt to discern why people supported or opposed the treaty) on this?
What was the Irish media focusing on? Also, how was turn-out on this?
Seth Gordon 06.20.08 at 4:49 pm
Why doesn’t Europe hold a constitutional convention? Require each country to hold a special election (party-list proportional representation) to choose delegates, lock the delegates in some swank hotel, and stipulate that (a) whatever document gets endorsed by two-thirds of the delegates is The Constitution of Europe Dammit; (b) if the majority of a country’s delegates voted for the constitution then that country is considered to have acceded to it.
James 06.20.08 at 5:00 pm
The Commission have done a poll examining the result:
“When asked to give a single reason for voting No, some 40 per cent of people replied that they didn’t understand the treaty. A fifth of respondents said they voted No to protect Irish identity while 17 per cent of respondents said they didn’t trust politicians or Government policies.
Other reasons cited for voting No where to protect Irish neutrality (10 per cent), to keep an Irish EU Commissioner (10 per cent) and to protect the tax system (8 per cent).
A majority of women voted No while a majority of men voted Yes.
Young people between the age of 15 and 29 voted against the treaty by a factor of two to one…”
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0617/breaking93.htm
simon 06.20.08 at 5:04 pm
More details and commision report here.
http://www.irishelection.com/06/why-we-voted-no/
The age break down is far greater then class
Sebastian 06.20.08 at 5:42 pm
Why do you automatically leap to a jobs explanation. It could be related to that, but just as much a more general class resentment issue: I have to put up with these allegedly upper-class hand-wringers writing the rules for me locally but at least they are Irish and have a small idea about what it is like here, why should I let snobs in *other* countries who don’t know even that much lord it over me?
Henry 06.20.08 at 6:16 pm
Simon – not sure that is true – the percentage of manual workers saying that they voted no (74%) is fairly staggering, even if the report emphasizes the age differentials.
TS 06.20.08 at 6:41 pm
“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.”
I think this claim is a little too broad, and especially in the case of Ireland (and probably also, e.g., Spain) things are a little more complicated. I think it is likely that both skilled and unskilled have over the last 30 years greatly benefited from Ireland’s admission and integration into the EU, which has helped the economy overall. But it may very well be that additional tighter integration, and admission of additional members, is not in the interest of unskilled labor in Ireland (or Spain, or others) AT THIS POINT. So yes, people may be voting their economic interest, and after having been admitted into the EU and having benefited from this, it may now indeed be in their interest to keep additional members from being integrated into the EU, or to avoid tighter integration among existing members.
So I guess I think the use of “has” and “affluent” in the first sentence blurs things a bit. Interests may change once a country has been successfully integrated into the EU. And Ireland wasn’t affluent when it joined.
Alan Peakall 06.20.08 at 7:58 pm
Seth @ 3,
I think I see where you are coming from. What minimum number of national accessions (by majority a nation’s delegates) would be required to make the new constitution effective? More importantly, who do you believe to be equal to the task of writing Europe’s “Federalist Letters”?
Nur al-Cubicle 06.20.08 at 10:01 pm
Saw Henry over at Bloggingheads.TV in his discussion with Daniel Drezner. Henry was brilliant.
The vote in Ireland surprised me as, from what I understand from some accounts in the press, there is a veritable pro-euro/EU underground movement in Ulster. Somehow I saw a solidarity factor in this and expected Eire to give the “green” light to the treaty.
astrongmaybe 06.20.08 at 10:42 pm
Shorter Toby@1 = in the glorious march of EU integration, we may hear the hoofbeats of History!! Quibble as ye may, peasants, the future is ours!
ArtD0dger 06.21.08 at 2:35 am
So first he conflates this warmed-over fragment of the rejected EU Constitution with “globalization,” then suggests — on no evidence whatever — that it was turned down yet again because the backwards-looking hicks were afraid for their jobs. And the solution, obliquely hinted, is for an even heavier thumb on the scale on behalf of those “left behind” in the next version.
All for the “benefits of open international markets,” I suppose.
Nordic Mousse 06.21.08 at 3:02 am
# 11 “Peasants”
Villeinous voters?
simon 06.21.08 at 12:32 pm
But if you look at the age differencials they are not far behind the manual workers
18-24 at 65% People still in education 69%
leederick 06.21.08 at 1:29 pm
74% of manual workers voted no, compared to 40% of the self-employed. It looks a big difference, but those figures are conditioned on people who voted. Once you take turnout into account 30% of manual workers voted no, and 24% of the self employed – which isn’t nearly so dramatic. I don’t think you can sell a story about the rejection being due to unskilled workers feeling under threat, when the actual proportion of them who voted no isn’t that much different to the proportion in other groups. The actual question is why self-employed workers felt that they had so much more to gain from the treaty that 36% of them were motivated to go out and vote yes, whereas only 10% of manual workers were.
Tom T. 06.21.08 at 4:03 pm
When asked to give a single reason for voting No, some 40 per cent of people replied that they didn’t understand the treaty.
I’d be curious to hear how many of the Yes voters didn’t understand the treaty, either.
sillyoldtwit 06.21.08 at 7:49 pm
No sooner had the vote been counted than those who voted no were accused of being racist or stupid. Some politicians and journalist were diplomatic but that was the logic of what they were saying nonetheless ….in a climate such as this there is no point in asking why people voted no ….It is noticable that when asked why they voted no no one mentioned immigration in spite of the fact that just about everyone has an opinion on it. I realise that some will say that referendum had nothing to do with immigration but that is neither here nor there.The point is that people gave every reason under the sun (some quite odd) but no one NO ONE mentioned immigration…a bit like Basil Fawlty and “don’t mention the war”… There seems also to be a suggestion that the middle classes are more advanced in their ideas than the working class but this is a prejudice. If you examine ‘white flight’ it is always the middle class who move first but as they own and controll the media they controll any debate on the subject etc. etc. It is also the middle class who are benifiting from cheap imported labour …..
No , there is no point in asking the why of all this in such a climate…and of course it would never enter the mind of our politicians and journalists to consider the possibility that those who voted no got it right and that the yes people should reconsider their own case..
W. "Mr. Helpful" Kiernan 06.21.08 at 11:08 pm
And while those of us who
are more fortunatewere already wealthy and who eagerly hoped to get yet wealthier at the insignificant cost of the poor getting poorer might regret it, it is hardly surprising that—in accordance with Heckscher-Ohlin logic—they vote accordingly.Fixt it for yez, Doc!
jj 06.22.08 at 1:19 am
I don’t know if you realize it, but millions of indigent, ill-housed, unemployed and ill-educated Americans would gladly vote for admission to the EU, if only we were allowed to return to our European roots. The prospect of an adequate education, humane housing and health care, dignified employment, cultural inclusion and rapid political integration would generate a tidal wave of affirmative approbation.
On the other hand, you might also consider the historical precedent of shipping out your undesirables to the colonies.
novakant 06.22.08 at 12:36 pm
the Irish vote divided along class lines in a stark and disturbing fashion.
This isn’t supported by the data: a whooping 69% of voters “Still in education”, and I guess that mainly means “college students”, voted NO.
James 06.22.08 at 3:41 pm
#17 – I’m afraid you wouldn’t get into the EU unless you first abolished the death penalty.
More poll data on the referendum the Sunday Business Post today:
“Three-quarters of those who voted No believed the treaty would make abortion more likely, change corporate tax rates and reduce Ireland’s influence in Europe.
Significant minorities of Yes voters shared these views….
…
Almost 60 per cent of those who voted No believe EU membership will benefit Ireland in the future, and almost 40 per cent of No voters believe Ireland should integrate more fully with the EU.”
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS-qqqs=news-qqqid=33932-qqqx=1.asp
jj 06.22.08 at 11:23 pm
Take back your tired, your poor, your hungry, your huddled masses yearning to be free…
f.d.plessner 06.25.08 at 12:25 am
In response to Kevin O’Rourke’s comments on the Irish referendum, he might have mentioned that the Irish ‘no’ voters are extremely wise. NO ONE understands what the new treaty is about! Neither yes voters nor no voters. Why would anyone agree to a new contract if you don’t understand it? Those who voted yes are simply proof that there are morons wandering the streets of Dublin. Those who were interviewed wittered on about being ‘loyal’ to Europe. Um…what does that have to do with making an informed decision about your nation’s contractual obligations?
EWI 06.25.08 at 9:08 pm
The vote in Ireland surprised me as, from what I understand from some accounts in the press, there is a veritable pro-euro/EU underground movement in Ulster. Somehow I saw a solidarity factor in this and expected Eire to give the “green†light to the treaty.
Based on the references to “Ulster” and “Eire”, I ran this passage through the ol’ Brit Filter but am still no wiser as to what you’re saying, doc.
Comments on this entry are closed.