Brexit is over, as we all know, and while the referendum is non-binding, it still comes as something of a shock. Why would the majority of voters in the UK decide to leave the EU? Why vote against self-interest?

The Remain faction made a rhetorical mistake early on, and stuck by it. They appealed to economic efficiency. By joining and remaining in the EU, the UK (and its neighbors) would, they argued, benefit from lower transaction costs of all sorts. Life would be easier and better because of the economic efficiencies – the movement of goods and people around the EU, for instance, and the managing of cross-border business deals would encounter far fewer frictions if the UK remained than if it exited. Case closed.

For many, though, that argument clearly fell flat. It not only ignores history, social institutions, and heritage, it diminishes and often dismisses them. Arguments rooted in economic efficiency cannot trump (if you’ll pardon our using that term) appeals to emotion.

It reminded us of the lesson Uber learned when it tried to convince riders that surge pricing was a good idea. This is what Uber used to have to say about surge pricing.

Uber rates increase to get more cars on the road and ensure reliability during the busiest times. When enough cars are on the road, prices go back down to normal levels. It’s important to know that you’ll always be notified in big, bold print if surge pricing is in effect. When rates are more than double, the surge confirmation screen also requires you to type in the specific surge multiplier to ensure you understand what rates to expect.

On its face, surge pricing is a good idea, or at minimum an economically sensible one. By raising the price of a ride during peak demand, Uber gets more drivers on the road, matching supply with demand. But when unexpected events – like a shooting or hostage crisis – raised prices dramatically during an emergency, appeals to “supply and demand” were the last thing that angry customers wanted to hear even if what Uber was saying happened to be true (that higher prices would have gotten more drivers to site of the shooting and provided more safety).

But appeals to rational economic principles fall flat in the face of intense emotion. When you know there’s someone with a gun in your neighborhood, you really don’t want to confront higher prices in your ride app; it upsets you to think that a company is profiting from it. When UK voters are frightened into demanding tighter border controls amidst an international migration crisis, it’s not useful to hear from economists that immigration is typically good for everyone in the longer run.

The Remain faction eventually got the message, and began appealing to the UK’s historic role in leading Europe, but it was already too late. Gordon Brown’s “leader not a leaver” video – filmed in the ruins of Coventry Cathedral, destroyed by the Nazis and preserved as a monument to European peace — was right on the mark. But when your best plea comes from one of the least popular Labour governments ever, that’s a new kind of problem.

Brexit may be a disaster (although we still have to see what Parliament decides to do, and if the EU offers the UK better terms to get them to stay), but it’s also a useful reminder. When your opponents flawlessly employ the principles of change management – even if only by accident – you’d better have something better than appeals to efficiency up your sleeve.