The great pop song Zombie by the Irish group The Cranberries called out the justifications for political violence on both sides of the border. The powerful lyrics highlighted the mentality of people that had their thinking locked into a historic grievance – the 1916 uprising – as zombies.

One hundred years later I feel that most Brexit political discussions are similarly locked in time – the 2016 referendum. As the Americans say, each side is ‘re-litigating’ such things as whether the call for a second referendum was tactically wrong, or whether Prime Minister Cameron could have fought the general election differently.

We too often get our Brexit arguments out of the cupboard and give them a gentle clean and polish before putting them back in exactly the same place.

Let’s try to see if we can find even the beginnings of a new arrangement …

Firstly, we should remember it was a referendum – “every vote counts”. Unlike most elections, there were no safe constituencies, no vote could be taken for granted. There are many good reasons why referendums are bad for politics, not least because of popularism, but it would be foolish to deny its attraction in some quarters, and its promise of agency. Take back control.

Secondly, we can consider that if people are feeling neglected, unheard and angry, then sometimes they will throw a massive strop, politically speaking. The famous reply from an ordinary woman on a street in Newcastle being interviewed by a London-elite journalist: ‘yes Brexit will hurt GDP, but it is your GDP’. In doing this analysis we must be careful not to be dismissive nor disrespectful.

At this point we get nearer the nub of the question – if Brexit was a lightning conductor for a bigger economic storm about deindustrialisation, unemployment, globalisation and immigration, what can a government do against such economic forces, if anything?

The current economic turmoil in the USA following the tariffs debacle is similarly a symptom of a government trying to resist these global forces in order to protect post-industrial communities in decline.

Post-Brexit the Tories called these areas left behind, needing levelling up, which as a programme didn’t deliver on its promise. The Labour party suggests ‘growth’ but currently its infrastructure plans seem to favour the Oxford-Cambridge-London triangle which doesn’t bode well.

On common ground, most parties have picked up on ideas about ‘place making’ to help with programmes such as improving ‘the high street’ in towns where so many shops stand empty. But without the funds needed to make a noticeable difference.

The pessimistic answer to Brexit is that governments of all stripes can do precious little to slow or reverse the decline of many communities other than offer vague words and one-way tickets to London.

A better answer, I’d suggest, is to get deep into the weeds of sustainable communities as a area of expertise. This neglected body of knowledge, from Jane Jacobs onwards, has learnt from the mistakes of professional dogmas such as planning, architecture, and economics. In my view we also need to be humble about the times when ‘community development’ dogmas have also let our work down.

Finally here, if ‘growth’ is to be the answer for the time being, then it is essential work to do all we can to reduce and prevent the extractive nature of capital from communities. There is also an extractive nature of labour, namely where people get a good job then quickly move out to the leafy suburbs taking their salary with them.

This needs to go beyond shallow statements on ‘local multipliers’ which literally don’t add up when you put all the sector reports on the same table. Local ownership might be a more fruitful method.