I, like many of our correspondents over the past week, was more enamoured with the football; Iceland beating England in the Round of 16 at Euro 2016; the stuff of fairy tales.
And to be fair to Mackay he actually stayed home on Tuesday morning to watch the game! As one clever bastard tweeted, "Two #Brexits from Europe in one week..."
Federated Farmers convened their annual conference on Monday, and while a major focus was rural security, there was more than a little chitter chatter on the ramifications of Brexit from an agricultural viewpoint as well.
So at the behest of Monsieur Mackay I began to read up feverishly on the topic.
After pouring through jargon and getting my head around Article 50, I came across an intriguing aspect of the saga that isn't peculiar to the Brexit vote.
It's emerged the campaign material for voters was considerably less than it was for, say, the Scottish referendum, or any sort of general election, the implication being people were ill informed before they cast their vote.
In fact, just hours after referendum results were confirmed, a Google report revealed the term "What is the EU?" was the second most searched post-announcement.
Even if there had been screeds of information available I doubt people would have paid much attention to it. As former Federated Farmers President Don Nicholson told The Country on Monday for a lot of people it was simply a vote against British Prime Minister David Cameron.
And it's here we get to the nub of the issue. People vote for the guy in the blue corner or the guy in the red corner; it's personality politics and it's nothing new.
Put simply, it's human nature. You can put out all the policy in the world but at the end of it all it's about who looks good and trustworthy on camera, who has the strongest following on social media and who can get away without making public (or private) gaffes.
I was questioned to a degree by some who thought my assertion that those who voted either way without properly informing themselves of the ramifications were morons.
However, in light of the evidence that suggests people were scrambling to find out exactly what they'd voted for after the fact, I'm sticking to my guns here.
There's even the hashtag #regrexit trending on Twitter in the aftermath, further suggesting people didn't quite know what they were asking for when they cast their vote; again, many were simply choosing sides for typically superficial reasons rather than considering the consequences should their side cross the line first.
Perhaps some in the Leave camp didn't actually expect their horse to come in?
We see it in our own politics as well. People vote for one side or the other like they're supporting their local footy team rather than examining the policy and track records of all sides in the contest.
The flag debate was a classic case in point; a lot of people voted to change the thing because it was a government proposition, others chose not to for exactly the same reason - it had little to do with design or national identity.
Often people vote based on historical mantras that have become so dulled over the passing of the decades as to be rendered almost wholly untrue in the present.
There's nothing wrong with this approach, of course, but what is does do is take away any recourse for complaint when reality bites.
Maybe I've read too much on Brexit; I'm starting to go mad like Mackay. I'll start mumbling round the office if I'm not careful - thank God for the football!
