Changing your mind, implies you may have been wrong in the first place.

 It may mean that certain issues have come to light, and that these have changes the premise of the original proposition.  This is easier for technical or situational issues.  This is the easiest to do, but even in these situations, people often hang on to old hypothesis or ideas despite the new proven facts.

Changing your mind may be the result of; ‘well, if she/he says so, it must be right/wrong,’.  Clearly most of us accept the influence of individuals or institutions dear to our hearts.   Needless to say such influencers can be good, e.g. Martin Luther King, or bad, Hitler.  Nevertheless there are influencers in the world who do change massive human beliefs such as Xi of China. Comfort comes to individuals in belonging to the tribe, ‘If the tribe accepts, it’s OK for me.’  These are very hard circumstances in which to voice an alternative view.

 Changing your mind, to most of us, implies a weakness, and to admit that weakness is difficult. Is it a weakness or a strength to have the ability to re-assess our ideas, which may be well entrenched, or even have deep seated cultural attachments.

Change, namely adopting a new mind-set, is something that individually and collectively does not sit comfortably or naturally with any of us.  Nurture it seems very much outweighs nature.  The idea of social mobility, if seen in this context, is much easier to promulgate than practise.

In the UK we are being asked to make our mind up about leaving the European Union where we have been members for over 40years.  The ideas, which are being tested have been found to be exceedingly complicated.  Dominant ideas, include the hardest tribal fixed idea is, that being British is good and all that this entails, (World wars which Britain won, Royalty, unwritten constitution, mother of parliaments, freedom of the press, etc., etc..) Most of all the loss of sovereignty.  This dominant idea transcends political loyalty.  All sectors of the UK community espouse these ideas.  They are being asked to revert to a Great Britain which has been and to a lesser extent still is, a substantial influencer in global trade and policy.

The alternative idea is the European collective moving execrably to a federal Europe.  A beacon for peace, a massive trading block and a highly sophisticated political machine than can be a major influence in world politics.  Freedom of movement and unification of financial rules and fiscal unity will surely come. Ultimately the wealth of the EU will be shared thru’ enterprise and innovation throughout the territories as national economies are integrated.

Both visions have their points but each is dominated still be the echoes of the world wars. Germany and France lost, Great Britain won.  So what? You might say, but these are the dominant ideas behind the ‘remainers’ and the ‘leavers’.   You could postulate that as the younger generation grows so will the history of GB fade, you could argue for either dominant idea, but because of the political ineptitude of David Cameron, we have to make our mind up now.

The people voted narrowly to leave, Parliament (a mix of eccentrics with their own set of ideas) has been unable to accommodate the EU’s demands for separation. We now find ourselves back in the battle for, leaving without a deal, a review of the original vote, or a plebiscite to approve a leaving agreement terms.

In this morass of complex ideas, it seems that the voters have lost their faith in any of the political parties.  

There is no conclusion here, only oversimplification on one side, and a mixed and incoherent babble from the other.  It is likely but not certain that the majority will side with the simplest idea, because that is the one we can all understand, and maybe some will change their minds, even in desperation. c