The people the article was about live difficult lives. They have limited incomes which they would struggle to improve. Those who have jobs are doing hard jobs which give little job satisfaction. Many have housing problems such as private landlords who delay or refuse repairs or council houses which are unsuitable because the best stock has been sold off. They're bombarded with adverts for things they can't really afford. Life's a daily struggle and an unexpected bill can cause chaos. In addition they have been attacked by having their benefits squeezed, making life even more difficult.
In their shoes would you be sitting down and working out a rational and sustainable way forward? I very much doubt it.
You said:
"In their shoes would you be sitting down and working out a rational and sustainable way forward? I very much doubt it."
I don't know.
These are still members of the voting public who, in theory, are meant to weigh up the pros and cons of the issues involved in the referendum.
if they are too tired to do so, or aren't capable of doing so, then they may well rely on their usual partisan media, which, on many topics, was peddling - at best - half-truths.
People voted for whatever they perceived to be the promise of a better future.
And then the orchestrators (on both sides) all waved goodbye.
