In a Civil Service World article posted on 22 June, Paul Baines argues that the complexity of the arguments on both the remain and the leave side is such that decisions about which way to vote will be led by emotion, rather than being informed by reason.  In theory we are more likely to be risk averse rather than opportunity grabbing – that is, vote remain, to avoid the risks of leaving, rather than vote leave, to embrace the unknown opportunities this might bring. However, Baines argues that the inability of the remain camp to present a clear message and their resort to fear-mongering could mean that the outcome doesn’t align with the theory. And so it was.

The leave camp focus on immigration and the NHS was a ‘hearts’ rather than ‘minds’ approach.  This is why they are struggling now to articulate a plan and rowing back rapidly on the slogans: they were never real promises, thought through on the basis of a careful assessment of the likely fall-out of a leave vote. They were just, as Iain Duncan Smith put it, ‘a series of possibilities’, lacking any substance.

We are in a terrible situation.  The Scottish political leadership – Labour as well as SNP – are looking at opportunities to remain in the EU and talking about alliances with Gibraltar.  So we are looking at the possible break-up of the UK. EU leaders are fearful of the domino effect, and the possibility that other nations will follow the UK out. Standard & Poor, Moody’s and Fitch have dropped the UK’s credit rating.  The pound has crashed and economists are pointing to “at least six months of political and economic paralysis, with a recession quickly becoming the markets’ baseline scenario.”

Baines says, quite rightly:

“The EU referendum experience holds lessons for engaging the public in complex political issues and communications campaigns more generally.”

We need to act on these lessons very fast. We know how good engagement works – and, in particular, how good engagement can reduce the emotional heat in an argument and present complex situations in accessible ways, without diminishing their complexity.  We know how to help people think through the implications of their immediate responses and support them to deliberate on how decisions might impact on them, and also on others in different contexts, with different resources and capabilities.  We need to use this knowledge now.

My fear is that if we don’t take action fast to limit the fallout – which will be felt particularly hard by those with no financial cushion – then the political vacuum will be filled by the loud voices of hate.  We have already heard of racist attacks increasing since the vote.  We need to bring people who voted leave and those who voted remain together to discuss what kind of country we want to be.  This is in part about the nature of our future relationship with the EU but it has to be about more than this:  the situation is at present too uncertain, we haven’t invoked Article 50 and until this happens the fight to overturn the outcome of the vote is likely to continue.

We need to engage people on the topics that drove the antagonism expressed through the Leave vote and on the fears felt by the Remain camp.  In particular, the poison needs to be extracted from the debate about immigration and how it affects our country. This means involving people who experience its impacts: this means involving immigrants as well as those who fear immigration. These impacts are real, though we don’t really talk about them, because it’s difficult and uncomfortable.

There is no trust in the political process and many people will have used their votes to vent their anger on those inside the gilded spheres of politics and business. People have suffered from years of austerity with no one listening to them: many of them want someone to blame. So some – perhaps many – have blamed immigrants, ‘experts’ and ‘the establishment’.

We need to work across leave and remain camps, drawing together people who want to figure out where we are (which is anyone’s guess at the moment) and what our options are: this can be about whether we prefer a Norwegian or a Swiss model, or a Canadian model or some other model. But it needs to be more than this.  Whichever model we opt for, or if somehow the row-back works and we don’t leave, we have damaged ourselves as a country, and damaged our friends around the world.  We need to work out quickly how to mend ourselves, before the forces of division and hatred fill the vacuum.

Involve has started this process, looking at how we can re-frame the debate.  We all need to join in.