Did Pro- or Anti-Brexit forces win in the UK? Depends on what numbers you look at.

Last week’s European Parliament election shouldn’t have happened in the UK; they should have left the EU nearly two months ago. Nonetheless, it was seen by many, both in the UK and Europe, as a proxy second referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. And it provided absolutely no clarity whatsoever.

Did the UK vote for a no-deal Brexit? Or did they vote for a second referendum? Depends on which numbers you want to look at.

A big part of the reason is that both sides of the debate have reason to claim victory. The pro-Remain parties finished with a combined 5 percentage points more votes than the pro-Brexit parties. But, as I wrote a month ago, the fracture in the pro-Remain vote has led to the Brexit Party finishing with two more seats than the pro-Remain parties, which is what matters when it comes to the voice the EU will hear in Parliament.

But I thought we used proportional representation.

We do, but it’s not quite that simple.

The UK divides itself into twelve constituencies, each getting between 3 and 10 MEPs, and these MEPs are divided proportionally within each constituency. With a relatively small number of MEPs per constituency, the scope for vote splitting, while smaller than under first past the post, is still present.

A party needed to get at least 7.3% of the vote across Great Britain to get any seats in the European Parliament.

EU law allows a member state to set a minimum vote threshold to enter parliament, so long as said threshold is no higher than 5%. But with the UK’s constituency model, the unofficial threshold that is needed to get a seat in parliament is just above 7%, rising as high as nearly 20% in the region with the fewest seats.

Further, as these figures are hard multiples of what’s needed to get a seat in a particular region, any votes above a multiple of these figures are effectively wasted.

Could those wasted votes have been used more effectively?

There were enough wasted votes which, with a little bit of tactical voting, could have seen as many as half a dozen seats change hands.

• East Midlands: Change UK’s votes going to Greens would give them a seat at Labour’s expense
• East of England: UKIP’s votes going to Brexit would give them another seat at Conservatives’ expense
• Scotland: SNP’s and LibDems’ excess votes going to Greens would give them a seat at Conservatives’ expense
• South East: LibDems’ excess votes going to Greens would give them a seat at Labour’s expense
• Wales: Plaid Cymru’s excess votes going to LibDems would give them a seat at Labour’s expense (Labour would be wiped out in Wales)
• West Midlands: UKIP’s preferences to Brexit would give them another seat at Conservatives’ expense

The net change here being pro-Brexit parties potentially gaining two, while pro-Remain parties potentially gain four. That would mean their seat totals would be tied at 31 seats apiece.

Well that clears things up, doesn’t it?

Indeed (I’ll assume that was sarcasm). It’s very difficult to objectively call this election a mandate to move forward with either view on Brexit, be it leaving without an agreement or holding a second referendum on membership. While you can easily slice these results to fit whatever narrative you want, it remains that the UK is incredibly polarised by this issue, which will make solving it that much more difficult.