Liberal Democrat leader Vincent Cable and Change UK's interim leader Heidi Allen
Liberal Democrat leader Vincent Cable and Change UK's interim leader Heidi Allen © FT Montage/Getty

Efforts to create a unified anti-Brexit slate of candidates for next month’s European Parliament elections have fallen apart owing to UK poll rules and party rivalries, damping the long-term prospects for a centrist alliance.

It means that voters in England will have to choose between at least three parties that are backing a second Brexit referendum: the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and newcomer Change UK. Labour has also held out the possibility of supporting another plebiscite, without making an explicit commitment.

Voters in Scotland and Wales will also have the option of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru respectively, both of which have backed another referendum.

Elections to the European Parliament, which will take place on May 23 in the UK unless parliament ratifies Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement beforehand, are being widely seen as a proxy for a new vote on whether to leave the EU.

The elections in England, Scotland and Wales involve a proportional voting system dubbed the regional closed list. People cast their votes for the party they wish to support in regions.

Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, had wanted an electoral alliance between his party and Change UK, which was formed by former Labour and Conservative MPs. He said in March it would be “very damaging for both sides” to be competing for votes.

However, the Lib Dems and Change UK, previously known as the Independent Group, have been unable to reach an agreement.

Under UK election rules, candidates from different parties cannot join together in a single anti-Brexit list.

One proposal examined by the Lib Dems and Change UK was for the two parties, and the Greens, to form an anti-Brexit shell vehicle, specifically for the European elections, but the idea foundered.

A senior Lib Dem figure said Change UK “weren’t interested” in an alliance, and wanted to use the elections “to try out their own brand”.

A Change UK MP denied this, and said that the problem was time — the proposed new anti-Brexit shell vehicle would have required paperwork filed with the elections regulator several weeks ago, “when people didn’t know the European elections were happening”.


An alternative plan — for the Lib Dems and Change UK to stand aside for one another in different electoral regions — also failed.

The Independent Group on Monday completed its registration as a political party, with the name Change UK.

However, it will have no logo on ballot papers for the European elections after the Electoral Commission ruled that its proposed emblem — featuring the letters TIG and #change on a black background — was “likely to mislead voters”.

The watchdog judged that the initials TIG were not sufficiently well known, while internet search results associated with #change could fluctuate dramatically in future.

Critics of Change UK have questioned its strategy, arguing that its name is amorphous and that it has failed to build momentum since 11 MPs left Labour and the Conservatives to form the Independent Group in February and March.

But Change UK, whose interim leader is Heidi Allen, said that 3,700 people had applied in less than a week to stand as its candidates in the European elections.

The Change UK MP talked down the prospect of any future alliance with the Lib Dems — saying Sir Vince’s party had a “tarnished” brand, “never really confronted their demons” over participation in the 2010-15 coalition government with the Tories, and “are not going to be the future of the centre ground”.

The Greens, who won more seats than the Lib Dems in the 2014 European elections, rejected the possibility of a unified slate of anti-Brexit candidates.

The party said it would “resist any calls for us to stand alongside parties with whom we have fundamental ideological differences on austerity, economic policy and beyond”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024. All rights reserved.
Reuse this content (opens in new window) CommentsJump to comments section

Comments