As is well versed with political opinion, people are more often likely to deny positions they align with, than otherwise.
"I'm not [position] but..." is a common example. A person denying their position in instances like these, actually has the opposite affect to distancing them from it, because human beings are astute enough to understand the subtext of such statements.
Your statement
"I was not even pro Brexit until the aftermath ..." indicates fairly logically in lexical terms that you've been
"pro Brexit since the aftermath...". The words until and since, are very clearly understood in language, so it's highly improbable; though not impossible, that you misspoke. They are mutually exclusive prepositions and unless you misspoke, I consider you to be clear in stating your position.
Christmas, was a long time ago, both in politics and in real time, I don't believe that many people will consider my not reading your post history back 6 months to reflect that poorly on my ability to read in general. Besides, even if I had read your opinions about Russia joining the EU six months ago, I wouldn't consider them to be relevant in determining your alignment six months since. Also, there's no need to apologize, not unless you really mean it, but it was nice of you, thanks.
No, just how both camps are presenting themselves in this thread, countering sound argument based on real economic, fiscal and financial principle, with claims of mass market conspiracy and space born noodle monsters, makes the situation in here very clear, as funny as it is.
I know some leave voters who had genuinely valid, albeit entirely self-serving reasons to vote the way they did, in fact the result makes me financially better off, at least in the short term, even though I voted remain. I also know people who voted leave for stupid reasons, I also know people who voted remain for valid reasons and people who voted remain for stupid reasons. I also know people who didn't vote at all, considering themselves to not know enough about the incredibly esoteric intricacies of the financial economy to make an informed choice, which actually demonstrates a level of heuristic self awareness that society could benefit from more people having to be honest.
I'm actually of the opinion that both campaigns were two of the most negative, bias-loaded and uninformative campaigns in British political history and owing to that, the majority of people on either side, probably based their vote mostly on blind emotion, whipped up by a relentless barrage of rhetoric, designed to inspire fear and prejudice. Both campaigns were as terrible as the appaling behaviour of their champions since.
I would suggest that anybody who went out and cast a vote in one of Britain's most important peace time referendums, on the basis of righting a perceived slight on their capacity for intelligent thought, didn't take the referendum seriously and didn't reflect nearly well enough on the consequences. The vote wasn't a glorified IQ test, it was never about how clever people felt, or their insecurities thereof, but given what was at stake and given how important the decision was, I can confidently say that anybody who did vote the way they did for the reason you mentioned, did not act intelligently. I can think of nothing more ironic and utterly self-defeating, than somebody doing something stupid, in order to get back at people who think they are.
The debt was being paid off, albeit very slowly, I don't believe they would have ultimately met their target of clearing the deficit by 2020, but that, believe it or not, is besides the point. The outcome of the referendum and the economic shock it has caused, has put it beyond reasonable doubt that it is now, not possible. The chancellor coming out publicly, with a statement that writes off one of his party's key manifesto pledges, is politically very significant, as were the statements made by Mark Carney concerning the country's immediate economic risks and future economic prospects, as are statements presented by other expert economists and financial institutions, because these are things that influence confidence and everybody should be listening to them and giving them serious consideration, that would be the intelligent thing to do. Making up silly reasons to dismiss them, because they are unpalatable, isn't intelligent.
