Thomas Piketty — Europe and the class cleavage

In all the referendums for the last 25 years the working classes have systematically expressed their disagreement with the Europe presented to them, whereas the richest and the most privileged classes supported it. During the French referendum on the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, we observed that 60% of the voters with the lowest incomes, personal wealth or qualifications voted against, whereas the 40% of the electorate with higher incomes voted in favour; the gap was big enough for the yes vote to win with a small majority (51%). The same thing happened with the Constitutional Treaty in 2005, except that this time only the top 20% were in favour of the yes vote, whereas the lower 80% preferred to vote no, whence a clear victory for the latter (55%). Likewise for the referendum on Brexit in the UK in 2016: this time it was the top 30% who voted enthusiastically to remain in the EU. But, as the bottom 70% preferred to leave, the leave vote won with 52% of the votes. 

What is the explanation? Why are votes on the European Union always characterised by such a marked division of social class? This outcome is all the more puzzling as the structure of the vote for the different political parties has long since ceased to be so clearly marked by the class structure, with the three dimensions of social division (qualifications, income, personal wealth) all pulling in the same direction. Since the 1970-1980s; the most highly qualified have swung distinctly towards the left wing parties in both countries, whereas those with the highest incomes and personal wealth continue to tend to support the right-wing parties, which are themselves undergoing change. On the other hand, during the votes concerning Europe in 1992 (French referendum on Maastricht Treaty), 2005 (French referendum on constitutional treaty) and 2016 (UK referendum on Brexit), the intellectual and economic elites in both instances found themselves supporting the EU as it existed, whereas the less privileged categories on the left and on the right rejected it.

The reason for this, according to those who are better off, is that the working classes are nationalist and xenophobic, perhaps even backwards. However the xenophobia of the less well off is no more natural than that of the elites. There is a much simpler explanation: the European Union, as built in recent decades, is based on widespread competition between countries, on fiscal and social dumping in favour of the most mobile economic actors and functions objectively to the benefit of the most privileged. Until the European Union takes strong symbolic measures for the reduction of inequalities, for example a common tax which impacts the richest, enabling the taxes of the poorest to be lowered, this situation will continue....

Le Monde — Le blog de Thomas Piketty
Europe and the class cleavage

Thomas Piketty

Daniella Medina— Class Interests & Discordant Politics: Brexit & the Trump Campaign

Levy Institute grad students' blog that is unabashedly leftist.

The ascent of conservative capitalism- in the US under Reagan and George Bush Sr. and in the UK under Thatcher- meant tax cuts, the erosion of labor unions, and new regulations imposed on the economy. These economic regime changes were based on the mainstream theoretical presupposition that what we really needed to do was create an economic environment conducive to unbarred corporate innovation and investment and eagerly accept international policy which, together, opened the proverbial floodgates allowing neoliberalism to leak all over the globe. What a mess.

I would take issue with the phase, "allowing neoliberalism to leak all over the globe." The reality is that this was the intention, and it was imposed internationally by the Anglo-American interests, that is to say, the international finance and translational corporatism the rule the US and UK, along with the deep state bent on global hegemony.

"Allow neoliberalism to leak all over the globe" is not correct way to characterize this. This suggests the natural order that is supposed to arise spontaneously with liberalization, deregulation and privatization, whereas the reality is that neoliberalism was imposed domestically and internationally through oligarchic, plutocratic and militaristic rule masquerading as democracy and government of, by and for the people, in which the elected government acts in the interest of all and spreads the benefits of liberty internationally.

The Minskys
Class Interests & Discordant Politics: Brexit & the Trump Campaign

Daniella Medina

Must read — Joel Kotkin: We Now Join the U.S. Class War Already in Progress

Must read. Demographics is the real basis of political economy as well as politics.

New Geography
We Now Join the U.S. Class War Already in Progress

Joel Kotkin | executive editor of NewGeography.com, the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University, and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism

Origin of Specious — Misunderestimating Osborne

In trying to pass legislation to force governments to constantly maintain an environment of financial instability and inevitable crisis, Osborne is looking after his class interests quite well. His class interests are summed up thus: ‘It is not enough that we are rich; others must be poor’. He lacks decency, not economic competence.

Origin of Specious
Misunderestimating Osborne

ht Neil Wilson