Democracy is a funny old thing, never short of surprises. Who would have thought four weeks ago that a potential Conservative landslide would turn into a hung parliament? Then again, who would have thought 12 months ago that presidents Trump and Macron would be preoccupied with Brexit?

For the UK, things have gone from bad to worse. If the aim of Prime Minister Theresa May was to strengthen her weak negotiating hand on Brexit, Thursday’s parliamentary elections did exactly the opposite — and then some. In politics, bluster can easily turn to whimper.

For the Remainers, the poll result leaves a glimmer of hope. At least a hard Brexit — a full detachment from the customs union and the single market — seems less likely. All talk about how “no deal is better than a bad deal” can now be thrown into the dustbin of misplaced soundbites.

European capitals are perplexed, but there is no reason for shadenfreude. The negotiations will be immensely complicated even without the political chaos in Westminster. The best thing to do in such a situation is to remain calm — take a deep breath and count to 10. The implications of Brexit on both sides of the channel will be significant. Rushing the process will make things worse.

Having said this, I am aware that the clock is ticking. The invocation of Article 50 means that Brexit should take place by the end of March 2019, a couple of months before European elections. It will be difficult to stop the clock when the negotiations have barely started.

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, is correct in saying that the EU is ready to begin whenever the UK is ready. The Union could take it a step further and call for a timeout. Will a coalition between the Conservatives and Northern Ireland’s rightwing Democratic Unionist party last? If we begin negotiations on 19 June, will we truly know who we are dealing with?

There is talk about a new election. What then? Yet another new negotiating mandate from a new government? Brexit was self-inflicted, we do not need to make things worse from the outside. Give the UK time to sort itself out. If Britain is ready, the EU will be ready.

It might be tempting to start the negotiations with technicalities, but that will be difficult before the big issues of jurisdiction, free movement and customs union are sorted out. Having negotiated EU agreements as a civil servant and a politician, I know from experience that it does not work.

As an avid anglophile I look at the last 12 months in dismay. Both the UK and the US are in the process of marginalising themselves from world politics. As a francophone I am hopeful; the election of Emmanuel Macron spells reform in a country that desperately needs it. As a Europeanist I see an opportunity to deepen integration and to take more responsibility both inside and outside the Union.

If this year has taught supporters of liberal democracy anything, it is that our system of governance is full of surprises and no matter how much we talk about stability, instability is often the norm rather than the exception. The good news is that at the end of the day democracy will find a solution, whether it means Brexit or not.

I just spent 10 days in San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Los Angeles, where I met visionary entrepreneurs and visited Facebook, Google, Apple and Tesla. I am also a wanna-betech-savy-middle-aged-man who reads up on this stuff on a regular basis.

Much has been written about the impact of the fourth industrial revolution — digitalisation, robotisation, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and 3D printing — on modern society.Little has been said about the capacity of democracies or other forms of government to absorb thischange.

The first industrial revolution gave us Marxism. The impact of the fourth industrial revolution will be many times greater. The internet and telecommunication revolutions were peanuts incomparison.

The pace of change is faster than ever. My teenage children do not remember a time before smartphones; their children will go to school in a vehicle without a driver. Things that you had to buy in the 1990s — a camera, stereo, games, watch, CDs or TV — are all on your smartphone. Soon that phone will be ousted by spectacles that bring you both virtual and augmented reality.

Robots are replacing muscle. Factories are becoming automated. So is intelligence. I do not have to ask my wife every time I do not understand something — Amazon’s Alexa will help me out. Machines solve complex tasks. Algorithms take care of mundane administrative jobs, do the analysis of markets and roam through thousands of pages of case law. Goodbye secretaries, market analysts and lawyers?

Even newsfeeds are created with the help of AI. Before politicians cheer at the prospect of aworld without journalists, they should remember that algorithms will soon be better at legislation than they are. How about letting an algorithm decide the optimal Brexit deal? Then we will know whether “No deal is better than a bad deal”. Well, perhaps not quite yet.

There will be no lack of ethical questions once homo sapiens begin to become a hybrid between man and machine. The prospect of a 150-year life is not far off. What will that do to school, work,pensions and our understanding of death?

I am all for free enterprise, but I do believe that we must create an ethical code for the fourth industrial revolution. Much as nation states have constitutions and laws, we need rules for the basis on which we advance technology. I vote for good, rather than evil algorithms.

The transition will be disruptive. Are politicians and legislators ready for this disruption? I think not. Studies claim that approximately half of current jobs will be lost in the next 15 years. How will democratic politics manage the transition? A basic income might help, but that will not be easy with a declining tax base caused by e-commerce and a more circular economy.

Big data and AI will be used by politicians to win elections. Will this be a victory for the demagogues or the mainstream? That will depend on who codes the algorithms. Elected politicians are often from an older generation which is not necessarily up to par on the latest technological megatrends. At least we are not yet at a stage where a social-media-empowered animated figure is in a run-off with a human.

International and national institutions are hopelessly slow and bureaucratic. It takes 10 to 15 years to frame a trade agreement; in the world of e-commerce this is more than a lifetime. Perhaps it is time to think seriously about an e-EU or e-WTO to tackle trade.

There are two ways to approach this revolution. Tech optimists argue that when old jobs vanish, new ones emerge. Productivity and transparency increases, money is saved and tasks are performed more efficiently. Human beings live longer, healthier lives. Basic needs are taken care of. We have more time to pursue happiness.

Tech pessimists point to the danger of technology taking over our lives. Opportunities to use and abuse power are plenty. The manipulation of algorithms, intrusions on privacy or cyberwarfare are but a few examples of problems raised. The future of mankind is at stake.

The truth probably lies somewhere between the two visions. The opportunities are as real as the threats. No matter how far we take robots, machine learning or AI, there are two things that technology will not be able to replace: empathy and human touch. I know scientists are working on this, but we are still far off.

We tend to overestimate short-term change, but underestimate long-term transformation. Be this as it may, politicians must understand that the fourth industrial revolution will transform democracy, society and mankind in the not so distantfuture.