Farage has again succeeded in creating a political earthquake. I confess there were times last week when I thought the polls must be wrong. Surely almost a third of the adult population weren't stupid enough to vote for a charlatan like Farage and a party with no policies beyond the most damaging Brexit? Last night they showed they were. However, both the Libdems and The Green party also did exceptionally well and if the pro and anti Brexit votes are added up it's clear that remaining in the EU is still the most popular option.
A graphic from Sky News is being widely circulated on social media:
A brilliant graphic from @SkyNews - clearly showing that in the EU Elections, a majority of voters are backing a #PeoplesVote on Brexit. Please RT this so everybody knows:#EUelectionresults pic.twitter.com/bVMxT3uZB5— People's Vote UK (@peoplesvote_uk) May 27, 2019
Sky have lumped Labour in with the other 'remain' parties which might be debatable but even taking Labour and Conservative parties out altogether, it's clear that pro remain/2nd referendum parties have a clear majority.
This morning the airwaves and the internet are full of politicians and commentators all interpreting the results in their favour but I don't really think we learned very much that was new last night.
A vote for Farage's Brexit party is effectively a none-of-the-above vote. They haven't got a manifesto so it can hardly be anything else. As far as these European elections are concerned it's business as usual with the electorate using it as a protest vote and nothing else.
Professor Sir John Curtice says neither side (leave or remain) won. He says what has happened is that people have become more polarised and moved to the extremes, hollowing out the moderate centre and I think this is true. It then raises the question if it ever becomes a choice between a hard no-deal Brexit and remain which side would win? In other words how would the 23-24% who voted Tory/Labour last night split? I don't believe a majority would favour no deal.
Professor Curtice also suggested a general election is out of the question since neither of the two main parties would want one. So, the parliamentary arithmetic will remain exactly as it is and so will the government's Brexit problem. The Tory party is finished as we know it - whatever they do. If Brexit isn't delivered they are done for, and if it is delivered they will never survive.
A few more things to take away from last night:
This morning the airwaves and the internet are full of politicians and commentators all interpreting the results in their favour but I don't really think we learned very much that was new last night.
A vote for Farage's Brexit party is effectively a none-of-the-above vote. They haven't got a manifesto so it can hardly be anything else. As far as these European elections are concerned it's business as usual with the electorate using it as a protest vote and nothing else.
Professor Sir John Curtice says neither side (leave or remain) won. He says what has happened is that people have become more polarised and moved to the extremes, hollowing out the moderate centre and I think this is true. It then raises the question if it ever becomes a choice between a hard no-deal Brexit and remain which side would win? In other words how would the 23-24% who voted Tory/Labour last night split? I don't believe a majority would favour no deal.
Professor Curtice also suggested a general election is out of the question since neither of the two main parties would want one. So, the parliamentary arithmetic will remain exactly as it is and so will the government's Brexit problem. The Tory party is finished as we know it - whatever they do. If Brexit isn't delivered they are done for, and if it is delivered they will never survive.
A few more things to take away from last night:
- UKIP did not win any seats at all. The party which won the most seats in 2014 has all but disappeared. As in 2015, Farage will struggle to get a handful of seats in Westminster at the next GE.
- Farage really only took most of UKIP's 2014 vote plus Tory leave-with-no-dealers. There is no great changing of minds towards a hard Brexit and if anything, quite the opposite.
- Labour did disastrously in London and other pro remain areas. They must surely now come off the fence.
- Scotland is even more anti-Brexit and Wales has now joined them with an apparent majority for remain. England is now the only UK region that might have a narrow majority for Brexit, but even this is questionable.
As far as Selby is concerned, we still have an uphill task. The Brexit party took 40.3% of the vote (HERE) compared to 31.6% nationally and if you include UKIP, English Democrats and the Tories the pro leave side in Selby is on 55.5% of the vote compared to 59.2% in 2016. I'm not clear where The Yorkshire party (7%) stands on Europe since their website (HERE) doesn't give a position. However, being frank, whichever way you look at it, we have a long way to go.
But we should not be downhearted. Farage and co are still offering fantasy and unicorns. They just kept hammering away with the simple message of 'deliver Brexit' and the voters, who would almost universally be made poorer, have voted for it.
This doesn't change my own mind one iota. Brexit will be bad in all scenarios and one day the people will recognise it. History is on our side.
If Brexit happens (and there's still a good chance it will not) I expect a slow realisation that it has been a disaster for the UK. The softer the Brexit, the longer it will take to reach that conclusion. Therefore, a hard Brexit might even be preferred. We can get it over relatively quickly, hold a decisive referendum and rejoin the EU.
Personally, I will always carry on campaigning for EU membership and if Brexit does happen despite all our efforts I'll continue to work to hold to account those who conceived and campaigned for Brexit even in the face of mounting evidence that it would be deeply damaging. Nigel Adams, this means you.
Incidentally, I noticed this paragraph in Stephen Barclay's recent letter to John Redwood (HERE) which shows a bit of the thinking among the Brexiteers in government:
"First, the Withdrawal Agreement does not, as you suggest, 'stop us leaving the EU'. On the contrary, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that we will leave the EU and legally cease to be a member on the entry into force of the Agreement. Therefore, the Agreement is a certain, and by far the most orderly, means of our departure from its political and institutional structures. We could only then re-join them by means of a lengthy and no doubt difficult accession procedure under Article 49 TEU when the terms of our membership would have to be negotiated anew. It is normal for a new member state to be required to adopt the Euro as its currency. Indeed it is no doubt because the Withdrawal Agreement ensures we legally cease to be a member, and the impediments to subsequently re-joining, that many of those who wish to remain and support a second referendum voted with you to oppose it".
Incidentally, I noticed this paragraph in Stephen Barclay's recent letter to John Redwood (HERE) which shows a bit of the thinking among the Brexiteers in government:
"First, the Withdrawal Agreement does not, as you suggest, 'stop us leaving the EU'. On the contrary, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that we will leave the EU and legally cease to be a member on the entry into force of the Agreement. Therefore, the Agreement is a certain, and by far the most orderly, means of our departure from its political and institutional structures. We could only then re-join them by means of a lengthy and no doubt difficult accession procedure under Article 49 TEU when the terms of our membership would have to be negotiated anew. It is normal for a new member state to be required to adopt the Euro as its currency. Indeed it is no doubt because the Withdrawal Agreement ensures we legally cease to be a member, and the impediments to subsequently re-joining, that many of those who wish to remain and support a second referendum voted with you to oppose it".
Barclay is hoping once he wrenches us out we will never want to go back in because of the Euro and the other 'impediments to subsequently rejoining'. The plan is to make it too hard to rejoin.
My message to Mr Barclay is - don't bank on it.
