Lessons from the UK’s Brexit vote: will it prove to be a fork in the road or just the same old cul-de-sac?

In How We Think John Dewey uses the metaphor of a fork in the road to suggest a moment when usual conventions are turned upside down, thought and reflection are prompted and in turn new courses of action identified, “Thinking begins in what may fairly enough be called a forked-road situation, a situation which is ambiguous, which presents a dilemma, which proposes alternatives” (Dewey, 1910, p. 11). There can be little doubt that with the announcement of a 52:48% vote in favour of leaving the European Union (EU) the morning of the 24th June 2016 dawned as a forked-road situation in the UK. It was certainly a situation of enormous collective and individual ambiguity and profound dilemma over what was to be done. The disintegration and reassembly of much of the British political establishment was rapid, but the working through of the implications and the identification of alternative courses of action will remain a work in progress for years to come. In the aftermath of the referendum (re-)thinking is necessary, but how far and to whom do those lessons extend? Beyond the intrigue of the political drama that ensued, commentary has been dominated by discussion of the social, cultural and geographical divisions manifest in the Brexit voting patterns. While the EU referendum was a very British political event, the undercurrent of disillusionment and disconnection amongst many communities is resonant of debates in other parts of world, most especially exemplified in the concerns which have resulted in the nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican Party candidate for the US Presidential election. (As I write this editorial in early September 2016 whether or not there is to be President Trump is yet to be determined.) Furthermore, as planning practitioners and researchers, the increasingly fractured nature of the relationships between communities in our cities and regions is a matter of widespread concern. But, how should we, as academics and planners, read the mood of communities and their relationships one to another, and what should be done? Voting preferences in a referendum are complex, and motivations, even for those voting the same way, may be very different and possibly somewhat contradictory. The ‘leave’ vote was certainly about many things. Perhaps the safest generalisation was that it was an anti-vote: antithe establishment, politicians and bureaucracies, but also notably anti-experts, including academics, and professionals. In the face of a profusion of arguments and statistics – good, bad and indifferent – the statement by Michael Gove, one of the leading politicians advocating for the UK to leave the EU, that “people in this country have had enough of experts”, struck a chord with many. So for academics reflection is necessary not merely as observers of the mood and concerns of communities, but in terms of our own position and contribution. Similarly for policymakers and planning professionals, do the communities we serve believe our actions will improve their well-being? Do they trust us to deliver? Maybe there should be pause for thought as to the relationship or otherwise between the shock and indignation that has echoed through the corridors of British institutions, including universities and town halls, and the social and geographical divides represented in the Brexit voting patterns. If this is truly a forked-road situation, thinking needs to extend beyond ‘academic’ interest, to honest, and potentially uncomfortable, reflection on the lessons to be drawn and, more crucially, the actions to be taken.