Some reflections on the recent campaign in the UK, whether to Remain in the EU or to Leave. No one knows the outcome of what will be a brutal political struggle in which the UK, such as it still is, will inevitably be the weaker party, negotiating from a position of weakness.

Brexit is the biggest threat to rationality in politics since the 1930s: arguments based on lies, rhetoric to discredit opponents, widespread rumours of a plot or conspiracy on a scale unprecedented in a democracy, all designed to prevent discussion based on facts.  Remain was based on discriminating judgment, leading to the conclusion that on balance, Britain’s future belonged in the EU, even in an uncertain future.  Leave on the contrary knew its goal and destination, and dismissed any argument to the contrary as unfounded. There could be no debate, no dialogue between the two camps. No wonder we read that people voting for each side only knew other people inclined to vote the same way.  The country was split down the middle between two groups with incompatible logics: Remain was pragmatic, empirical - one might add in the best British tradition; Leave was dogmatic, ideological. 

My first conclusion is that the political crisis we face lies not between the elites and the people, as many commentators and politicians say, but within society and within the elites. Each is rent apart. This is another form of class war. The leaders of the Leave campaign came from the same educational and social background as the leaders for Remain. The support for Leave may be populist, but their leaders were not romantic heroes who emerged out of the crowd, in the style of the 17th or 19th centuries. Equally, society was split between urban and rural, young and old. There are too many fault lines for reconciliation when the costs of Brexit will be bourne long after most of those who voted Leave are dead; no wonder there has been an earthquake.

My second conclusion is that the effort to convince people of the changes needed to cope with global risks, of which climate change is perhaps the greatest, has become immeasurably harder because it depends on international co-operation and perhaps shared sovereignty.  Things will have to get a lot worse before there will be a change of mind-set, leading to a change in priorities and policies. But I wrote this already in my book Cities and Crisis; at the end of the first chapter, I suggest that we are not prepared for a prolonged period of uncertainty. 

Next, there must be an end to knocking the EU and the Commission. These institutions have flaws - which ones don’t? - but we need institutions, especially institutions served by disinterested individuals who have an ethic of public service. The Commission is a lot cleaner than many of the governments in the EU whose cabinets are destabilized from time to time by charges of corruption or plagiarism. The launching of the Euro was a huge success, especially logistically; Schengen works every day for millions of people; the integration of formerly Communist countries into the fabric of Europe as it had been in the Renaissance was unprecedented; the Erasmus programme for students and EU programmes for research are unique in the world. These examples should continue to inspire us.  Europe’s cities and universities are better for the EU.  

And PASCAL? Our commitment to fairness and opportunity calls for measures to equip individuals to work and learn in an economy open to innovation and trade. The expression of fear and anger which is wrapped in the neo-nationalist agenda mirrors policy failures to provide better education and training. Let us focus on the things that make a difference for good.  People in cities - and especially the largest ones - voted to Remain. The Learning City Network is our flag; we can show that small towns and medium-size cities are just as effective as the largest at promoting social cohesion, learning and place-based development. There is more work to be done. 

Josef Konvitz, in a personal capacity
Chair, PASCAL International Observatory