The European Elections of 2019 in the UK- Brexit, Backwardness, and Difficult Decisions

For the first time in my life we are two days out from an election and I still don’t really know how I’m going to vote. I have it down to two options so it could be worse, but even so it is a discomforting feeling. The elections to which I refer are of course the European elections on Thursday 23rd May, convened to send our allocation of MEPs to the European Parliament and potentially the last European elections the United Kingdom ever takes part in. This last issue is perhaps the one that is having the most influence over these particular polls, for we are after all in the age of Brexit, where everything must be seen through that sewage-tinted lens, and it is not possible to separate any issue from it. These then, somewhat ironically, are the elections where the only issue is how/if we tell the EU to sod off.

In light of both the paucity of communication from the EU and the totally understandable lack of knowledge about the EU system amongst both the political and non-political classes in the UK it might perhaps be useful to briefly examine the role of the MEP in the European system. The chief role of the MEP is the representation of their constituents in the European Parliament, one of the seven key European institutions. They are directly elected by their constituents using a form of proportional representation to one of the 751 seats in the European Parliament, 73 of which are allocated to the UK. Within the UK, these 73 seats are divided into 12 constituencies, broadly corresponding to the 3 countries of the UK, and the regions of England. When sitting in the European Parliament MEPs have four key responsibilities which make up their overarching responsibility to their constituents. The first is voting on European legislation, the primary mechanisms by which the EU operates. These days (since the Treaty of Lisbon, if we are to be precise), nearly all European law requires the approval of both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. They are also charged with holding the EU Commission to account, both by electing the President of that esteemed body and by approving the appointment of the Commission as a whole. If the European Parliament ceases to have confidence in the Commission, it may conduct a vote of no confidence and dismiss them from office. Any international or trade agreements entered into by the EU must be ratified by the Parliament, as must any states wishing to accede to the Union. Finally, they are responsible for the adoption of the EU budget, and have large influence over how money is spent. Deciding on who assumes those seats then is no small responsibility. And yet it is one that all over Europe is consistently abdicated by many. As a rule EU elections suffer from a much lower turnout from national elections and, not infrequently, the people who are sent to Brussels and Strasbourg are of not inconsiderably lower calibre when it comes to actually doing the job they are elected to do than we might reasonably expect. In the UK, this has usually expressed itself through the election of deeply Eurosceptic MEPs as a protest vote, usually from UKIP or the BNP, who rarely turn up to do their jobs, instead enjooying the financial benefits of the European gravy train they profess to detest so much. In simple terms, most people use the European elections as a replacement for sticking their head into the mouth of a shark and then complaining that he should be using more mouthwash.

These of course are not the first elections we have had this month. May’s May Democratic Bonanza this year has already provided us with local elections on the 2nd of May where again Brexit was front and centre of the debate. I have already written about the results of that particular episode and warned of caution in interpreting what happened as anything but a general debacle for both Labour and the Tories and a cardinal triumph for the Lib Dems, independents and Greens. There are both common features and differences between the two votes. One of the key differences in this one is the presence of both Change UK and Brexit Party candidates, neither of whom were present in the locals as they did not register with the Electoral Commission in time. Given that the Brexit party is currently polling at upwards of 30% in opinion polls for these elections, they at least look likely to prove a major disruptor, mostly taking votes from disaffected Tory voters wanting the impossible; discontented UKIP voters, wanting a slightly milder form of racism; and dissatisfied Labour voters who, like the rest of us, just don’t know what the hell Labour’s position on Brexit is. Change UK look like they are going to be much less of a disruptor given the resurgent Lib Dems, but do stand a slight chance of winning one or two seats, particularly in the South West of England.

The most common feature of both elections is also one of the most downright stupid. That the primary issue over the course of the campaign is in fact not one that is on the ballot paper. Much like the local councillors elected on 2nd May the MEPs we will be sending to Europe whether remain or leave; second-referendumites or revokers; or soft- or hard- brexiteers will have no actual legislative ability to affect the outcome of Brexit in the slightest. With four parties campaigning on the basis of uncritically enacting the results of the referendum of 2016 (UKIP, Brexit Party, Tories, Labour) and, regionally dependent, up to four on the basis of either holding a confirmatory referendum on the deal or sheer revocation (Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and whatever the hell Change UK has changed its name to since I mentioned them in the last paragraph) the primary thrust of the campaign has been related to the implementation of the decision made on 23rd June 2016. The truth is though that only one body has control over the Brexit process now and that is the Westminster Parliament, so most of the parties in these elections are campaigning on the basis of something that they cannot do, and these elections are little more than symbolic. They have no more control over what happens with Brexit than you do over who is the next Prime Minister of the UK.

That is not to say that the symbolism in these elections should be underestimated. As with the local elections, whichever way the vote falls will be interpreted in line with the personal beliefs of individuals. It seems inevitable that the largest individual share of the vote will go to the Brexit Party, which naturally will be interpreted by Brexiteers as an enormous vote in favour of a no-deal hard Brexit. The Remain vote, split between four or five different parties, will prima facie look a lot smaller. On the latest polls, if you remove the Tories and Labour from the equation, the explicitly pro- and anti-brexit parties are more or less neck-and neck. Even if you add those two parties back in, assuming that the Tories are entirely pro-Brexit and Labour is divided fifty-fifty, then the situation remains broadly the same. A canny remainer will therefore be able to spin any vote for all remain parties combined that matches the explicitly pro-Brexit vote as demonstrating that the result is ‘inconclusive’, a word that more or less describes the last three years of our politics in its entirety. In light of this, these elections will once again tell us both everything and nothing, and will move us no closer to successful resolution in one direction or another. The symbolism for both sides will be somewhat neutralised by the facts on the ground. For what it’s worth, and as I have previously indicated I have strong remain tendencies so this may just be my bias creeping in, I think there is a strong chance that the Brexit Party will not secure as much of the vote as they are currently predicted. Giving an opinion pollster a vote on the phone is a whole lot less effort than dragging your posterior out of the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck to actually go down to a polling station and vote, especially if that nice Lithuanian barmaid is in there pouring you cans of Belgian lager. Either way, whether you are a remainer or a brexiteer, for the symbolism, it has never been more important to vote. For remainers wishing to bolster the symbolism of a strong pro-EU voice emerging, voting for an explicitly remain party (i.e. not Labour, whose capacity for fence sitting now ensures they have a permanent and rather disgusting looking creosote mark down the middle of the seat of their trousers) will be critical.

For me personally, this has caused me some consternation. I do not like voting purely on symbolism, and yet I find myself forced into a situation where this must be a major consideration in deciding how I do exercise my democratic rights. To outline my universal principles of deciding on how I vote briefly (I can expand later in a separate piece if anyone is interested), I apply several criteria when it comes to elections, with a couple of supplementary criteria to sway me one way or another if I am caught between multiple options. As those of you who habitually follow my writings on democracy and elections will know I always encourage people to vote based on the issues on the paper and on who they believe is based placed to tackle them. Determining this is always my chief concern. The first consideration is the manifesto upon which they are standing, and to my mind this must always be the primary consideration. I’m not saying you necessarily need to go through it line-by-line checking the detailed evidence behind every policy or things like that (unless you are a colossal spod like me anyway…) but you should have a general appreciation that you agree with the policies espoused and an agreement that the proposed policies are practical, plausible and based on solid identifiable evidence. This initial glance should enable you to narrow the field down a bit, and with this done you can look to the next important thing. The past. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it after all, as any internet philosopher will tell you, probably next to a picture of Albert Einstein with incorrect birth and death dates on it. There are of course multiple levels to this. One can look both to the history of the party and to the history of the candidate. Have they generally kept their promises? Are they broadly competent? Particularly in our system where the parties are so strong, the party’s pas behaviour can be telling. But care must be taken. I am firmly of the belief that those who permanently dismiss a party because a past leader did something they disagree with are at best foolish, and at worst downright dangerous for their sheer ideological absolutism. In the UK we most recently see this with the Lib Dems, with people (particularly those on the left it has to be said) condemning them for eternity for joining the coalition government, instead of seeing that move for what it was, a reasonable move to do the right thing for the country, even when it was pretty definitively electorally the wrong thing for the party. After examining the history of the situation, we can move on to examine other factors. Their ability and willingness to work across party lines towards mutually agreeable goals, even where compromise might be necessary. Do they have a clear desire to serve the general public and their constituents? Are they willing when they make a mistake to reconsider, or do they double down on their mistakes and make things even worse? On the individual candidate level, are they going to just be a party yes-man, or are they willing to be independently minded where necessary? Combined, these make up the primary considerations in my mind when deciding how your vote should be exercised.

But as I said, there are supplementary points. More often than not I will not need to consider these because I will have a clear answer from my initial thoughts. But if I do not then I can also consider the other factors. The two chief ones are both at the forefront of my mind now in the current cycle. It is a undeniable and unfortunate truth that we have moved in this country towards a form of personality politics. Of course personality will always play a role in representative democracy. An affable politician is more likely to go far than a dour one, but in this day and age, we have taken this to an extreme and it has become one of the primary criteria often to the exclusion of considerations of competence, suitability for the office and public example. This has led to the rise of politicians such as Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson who are now held out as paragons of political skill and leadership. Whilst they all undoubtedly have big personalities, it doesn’t take much scraping at the surface to reveal that they all have severe problems, which should outweigh the imagery of their public personas. Nigel Farage might look and talk like your mate Dave down the pub, but electing him multiple times to a European Parliament where he rarely turns up to do the job, is consistently skirting the edge of what’s permissible with his finances and will not actually outline specific policies in favour of broad populist rhetoric is downright foolish, and doing a great disservice not only to those who didn’t vote for him but also to yourself. Jacob Rees-Mogg might be a exemplar of a nostalgic view of Imperial Great Britain bestriding the globe being awfully nice and polite to everyone he meets, but beyond that facade lie all the questionable views than enabled that Empire to rise, all the xenophobia and patronising attitudes, all the exploitative practices and the superiority complex. In many ways, Boris is the most interesting of the lot. For what it’s worth, I was once a vague supporter of him and I maintain the belief that on a different path he could have been a fair PM. But after his stint as Mayor of London, he turned increasingly towards a more deeply ideological conservatism which has inculcated an inability to take an evidence-based approach and has stymied his growth and his ability to reach out to a broad audience. As he is looking fairly likely to be the next PM, it is only because his opposing number is so dreadful that he would stand any chance at all at the polls these days. But despite the rise of personality politics, personality remains an important secondary consideration for me. Our politicians whether we like to acknowledge it to the world or not represent us. They are our public face. And making sure that we have the right sort of public face on, and that our politicians broadly represent us and our values and are capable of leveraging that to secure our goals in a fraught world is an important thing to consider.

The other factor is the tactical aspect. It is undeniably true that in certain constituencies a tactical vote can be a valuable thing to manipulate results. In many ways I dislike this, because it can mean that people are not actually voting in accordance with their beliefs, but are prepared to sacrifice those in order to prevent what they see as worst case scenarios. I will not condemn people for doing it though as ultimately it is a judgment call. Do you think sacrificing your personal beliefs to prevent what you see as an even worse possibility to be worth it? If you do that’s fair enough, but it may mean you end up being even further from your goals than you started. Representative democracy is predicated on the idea that people will vote for the people who most closely match their beliefs so for me denying this in favour of voting for other in order to prevent people getting into power is often a questionable decision and can lead to a ‘dishonest’ democracy. I would never argue that it should be an irrelevant consideration, though I am of the opinion that it should be far from a primary one.

Ultimately the reason I am finding it so difficult to decide where to place my vote this time is because this election as with the locals, is all backwards. Insteading of being asked to make a decision based on the first criteria, we are being called upon to make one on the supplementaries, the ones that (to me at least) should be the ones to sway you one way or another if you are caught between two after considering their manifestos, their politics and their histories. Because these elections were called fairly late, and because so many people are so very cross that they’re going ahead at all, most of the parties have not had time to put together any sort of comprehensive manifesto with anything other than broad generalities. So analysing them is very difficult. Instead, we are being asked to vote for something that is not on the ballot paper, on the basis of big personalities and names who if elected will have no ability to do what they are promising to do. We are to all intents and purposes shouting into the wind, and revealing no new information or decision. In short we have no basis upon which to make our vote, except the symbolic. Which means that the primary consideration has to be tactical. In most of the UK, for Remainers that means voting either for the Lib Dems or the nationalist parties.

Which brings us back full circle to my quandary. As I have said I have it narrowed down to two parties which are as you might expect, the Lib Dems and Change UK. Thinking purely tactically, I should be voting for the Lib Dems. Around here, as with most of the country, they stand a good chance of snatching one, maybe two seats in the election. A vote for them is a vote for the symbolic rejection of Brexit in its entirety which in an election that is essentially a binary choice, is what I wish to achieve. But I do have some problems with this. As I have indicated in past writings, I am firmly of the belief that the primary purpose for any political party should be to get into power, and in this, the Lib Dems are no longer fit for purpose. Ask most people about the prospect of a Lib Dem solo government and you will be laughed out of the room. Whilst these elections are not national ones, and therefore not about putting a party into power as such, a vote for the Lib Dems is still a vote in support of that party, an implicit expression of approval. It represents a gesture of support for the policies and the politics they practice and whilst I have no objection to much of the first, the second is something of a different matter. Whilst they busy themselves as the party in the centre they occupy valuable centre-ground that could be taken by someone who is capable of using it better. Which brings us neatly to Change UK. In the interests of absolute honesty, and so that people have legitimate reason to accuse me of just being bitter on the internet, I did apply to stand as a candidate for Change UK in these elections, and was not selected so perhaps I am just being a bitter, stubborn fool, more concerned with my own interests than theirs. I am generally behind the sort of changed politics that Change UK profess. Their views on evidence-based policy, and the rhetoric they use about a less ideological politics and more of a focus on the national, not the party interest, chimes very closely with my own opinions. Further, I believe that the 11 MPs who left their old parties to form the new grouping did something admirable in the name of principle despite the fact that they have likely torpedoed their own political careers in the immediate term. Their emergence gave me hope that perhaps change might be possible. It’s not every day that a new party arises. And in these elections it is undeniable that a vote for them, like one for the Lib Dems is a vote rejecting Brexit. But it is difficult to argue any position other than that Change UK have majorly screwed themselves over from the start. Whether it’s the logo debacle, the multiple name changes, losing candidates both through lack of due diligence and because they just decided to move to supporting a different remain party, or any combination of the above, they have consistently made the wrong decisions and made mistakes that should have been obvious. And that’s a problem. The many missteps have ensured that they have squandered any initial momentum they may have had and risks cutting them off at the stem before they have a chance to bud. Whilst I remain hopeful that they might be able to overcome their early teething troubles and work towards achieving the changes they desire, changes I largely support, they must start getting down actual policy- plans for how they are to achieve this change. They must stop being seen as merely a one issue party, clamouring about Brexit, but with no other positions and defined policy. I am primed to support them. I want to support them. But at the moment they have made so many missteps that their chances of achieving significant gains in the European elections are so distant as to be non-existent. To have a chance of maintaining their status though they must draw in any votes they can, and herein lies my quandary and the decision over which I have agonised. If I vote for them I am voting in favour of a party whose vague goals I support, though I am critical of their early days and their lack of defined policy, but who have next to no hope of winning a seat in my area. If I vote for the Lib Dems, I deny a vote to a party that sorely needs it, vote in support of a party that upholds the status quo and occupies ground Change UK have the potential to fill more fruitfully, but also have a chance of winning one extra seat. I know where the tactical vote lies. And I know where my heart tells me I should vote. And they are not the same. And in this backwards election, where we are being forced to vote not on the issues on the ballot, but on an extraneous, irrelevant issue, that places me in a very awkward position.

I do not know what choice I will ultimately make. I will likely not do so until I step into the voting booth on Thursday. One way or another I’ll make a decision there but it will be tainted by resentment at the choice we are being forced to make. I try not to preach too much in these things and to retain a fairly neutral tone, but now I’m going to preach like hell. I may hate these elections for the decision we are having to make. But in terms of their symbolism, they cannot be underestimated. Only today, Theresa May has played her last hand, a last desperate pitch at the Parliamentary batsman for a deal to pass Parliament. It is clear that it will be wide by a mile. With the next few months up to the October 31st deadline day for a deal to be taken up by a Conservative leadership contest that will deliver us our next (almost certainly a hard brexiteer) Prime Minister, we are at a do or die time. There is no other deal. If MPs do not pass it in the first week of June, then the choice is between no-deal, no-brexit, or going with our begging bowl to Brussels for another extension that they may well not be minded to give. And who could blame them? These elections may well be the last time before that deadline where, short of direct action, you have an opinion to express a view on Brexit. However symbolic that expression may be, it will be seen in Westminster, even if it is not listened to. Don’t throw away your vote. If you are a remainer, do not reward the endlessly vacillating Labour with your vote. If Corbyn has proven anything it’s that Labour is a leave party with token vague mentions of a referendum to try and keep remainers on side. So don’t buy it. Vote for a party that is definitively anti-Brexit. In practical terms, it won’t stop Brexit, but it will give you the peace of mind that in the future you expressed your view firmly and tried to make your voice heard unequivocally. Whatever happens in this election both sides will try to force their own interpretation on it. As someone who thinks that Brexit remains one of the most idiotic scourges ever visited by a nation upon itself, let’s make sure that we make it difficult for the Brexiteers to claim absolute victory.

Stephen Hill

The Assayer

Twitter: @StephenJAHill

21st May 2019