Both tap into the uncertainties felt by many around the world about their economic future, the inequalities within society building ever more each day and the detrimental impact of globalization to date. In short they signify the failure of the liberally integrated international financial model to deliver to the aspirations of western democracy (and in due course emerging market) populations. In “smart-language” terms, they signify the end of the dominant global neo-liberalist economic ethos, as we’ve come to know it over the last 20-30 years. [My earlier IMF quotes are from their June 2016 publication titled: “Neo-liberalism: Oversold?” (I’m tempted to search for another publication, “Remain: Oversold?”). It seems like even this bastion of neo-liberalism is now seriously questioning the value of some of its ways.

Now globalization itself is another one of those problems, like climate change or perhaps international tax-avoidance, that globalisers, integrators and the Remain camp would claim can only be solved via global solutions, global institutions, global rules, etc. But the success or otherwise of the global economy itself is not in fact what the academics call a “global commons” problem, unlike climate change say, and so doesn’t necessarily need internationally integrated solutions. Either way, that is presumably why the United Nations exists. The Kyoto Protocol committed 192 countries (“State Parties”), big and small, both from within trading blocs and “sole-traders”, to agree greenhouse gases emissions. Some of the world’s largest, most developed countries even agreed to cut theirs, against their own short term interests. So I’m not sure we really need another “economic union” trans-national institution or trading bloc to fix that or any of the other so-called global problems.

And besides, where there’s a will there’s a way. I trust the bonds, cultural, commercial and emotional to remain firm, built as they have been during 70 years of peace between European nations (and I note that that peace has been largely due to NATO and the US, rather than Europe per say, and that those arrangements will stay in place post Brexit). Yes, I trust the peoples of these nations and of Britain to show the immense flexibility under any circumstances that they’ve shown in reaching this degree of integration together. Even if further splintering of the European model and/or the EU follows a Brexit, I believe it will work out no worse and possibly much better than if we Remain for all concerned.

So what about other European countries?

An easy-drawn line stretches from Trump, Sanders, through Brexit, Corbyn and UKIP to Podemos, Syriza, Le Pen and the continued rise of the right-wing parties across Europe. Just this month Austria came within 30,000 postal votes of installing a right-wing party leader as President. These are characters and movements coalescing around the bitter experience of the disenfranchised. Extremism is on the march pretty much everywhere, especially in Europe, in tune with the inequality trends, and the risks and uncertainties of more globalization, more integration. Europe is in the vanguard of this trend; from Sweden and Croatia, to Greece and Serbia, physical walls are springing up, mainly in the face of immigration challenges. If we don’t make the Brexit choice, then based on current trends we can expect more inequality, more extremism and much darker days ahead for Britain and other European countries. Watching this all unfold, the plea for “More Europe” seems an almost hideous cry for more instability, unless you want to accelerate the wall-building.

Democracies as systems need to better reflect the humanity of its key stakeholders. That humanity is not mono; it is manifold. On the other hand, ignoring this reality, protesting that any rejection of the bland multicultural integration ideology is racist and forcing more integration on unwilling populations just creates a vibrant recruitment environment for extremists, of all shades. Given this context we absolutely need opportunities for the many to express their fears from time to time and/or act; opportunities to let off steam and relieve the pressures building up, like the Brexit/Remain referendum (whatever the outcome)… or the building of these walls.

Donald Trump says that he will not surrender the US “to the false song of globalism”. If that is a strap-line that works in the world’s leading globalised economy (and I think it is), it does so for a reason. Is that extremism? Can it be considered as such if so many are drawn to his cause, from across the democratic, wealth and political landscape? He also said in the same speech, “The nation state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony”. I am genuinely fearful that I find myself agreeing with the man on some of these very important points, although on the latter I’m comforted the sentiment is also possibly shared, quite weirdly, by Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel economics prize-winner, Harvard economist Dani Rodrik and a growing number of academics. I’m further comforted by the in-built checks and balances in the US political system, that will hopefully be in full force if Mr Trump enters the White House.

But do we really have to build boundaries to improve our lives? That seems counterintuitive to me and no doubt many others, on lots of levels.

Well that’s right; we don’t need to. But we do need to focus more of our efforts on our own nation states, on how we run them, as well as how we can succeed. We can for example develop the high value skills of our younger populations and our reinforcing infrastructure. In the absence of these frankly easier, more digestible solutions, countries will find walls to build. And in the more globally integrated economies such as the UK and the US, we may find ourselves once again in the vanguard, doing the building.