DH voted leave but can't articulate why

[DifferentViews]

Sorry if this has been done before, but i need to get this off my chest and perhaps get new insight or come to a better understanding, so i can discharge some of the anger i feel.
So, i voted remain and he voted leave. Up to a point, i am prepared to accept we have different political views and can move on.
Talking to him last night, i asked, knowing what he knows now, would he still have voted leave and he said yes.
Cue a long discussion as to why and really he has no real idea what he was voting for, or what he wanted. Its just so woolly...he wanted change, but can't articulate what that would be.
It was just a knee jerk reaction to not liking the current situation and wanting things to be 'different'.
Its just made me so angry that he would still vote that way again in spite of all the evidence that things wont be 'better' out the EU.
His argument is that we don't know whether it might be better, so that gamble is worth it, but i am really struggling to see his point of view.
Please, can someone give me some idea how i can come to terms with this, so i am not consumed with impotent anger at him? Thank you.
Ps this is not meant to be a goady post against those that voted leave, if you have a well thought out argument and honestly believe it, that's great.

themoomoo

Its ok you can't expect them to read nearly 500 posts and think about posting something new.

Aeroflotgurl- which of those 20 reasons are the most important to you? I’m assuming that blue passports aren’t important to you, and you don’t disagree with sustainable energy and recycling, so I am discounting those. I think there are 13 left. The one about fish is wrong, as is the one about us deciding who to let in. That leaves 11. Could you say which are the 3 most pressing ones for you?

Blibbyblobby

We wouldn’t have to worry about Turkey
We didn't anyway, we have a veto

Can you articulate please why you would want to veto Turkey if they met all the criteria for joining the EU?

Oh FFS, are some of you really trying to claim that no one who voted Leave did so for racist reasons?

I am only asking Blibbyblobby why she wants to veto Turkey?

I would want to veto Turkey, as they committed the Armenian genocide and still will not apologise for it, yes my mother and her side of the family are Armenian.

Bertrand 3, 5 and 5 from that list. We could make our own laws, as 65% of British laws are made in Brussels. Our courts would have the final say, not Brussels. We wouldn’t have to accept decisions forced on us by other countries. We could make our own trade deals with countries.

No Reanimated I did not vote for racist reasons how presumptious.

I think the point is that the U.K. could have vetoed Turkey- not that it should. Turkey was not going to be foisted on us as the Telegraph article implies

I voted to Leave as well - but I am interested to hear why Remainers would want to veto Turkey - if the met all the criteria for joining the EU. Can they articulate why?

they met

“Bertrand 3, 5 and 5 from that list. We could make our own laws, as 65% of British laws are made in Brussels. Our courts would have the final say, not Brussels. We wouldn’t have to accept decisions forced on us by other countries. We could make our own trade deals with countries.”
Thank you. Can I ask what laws you object to? Obviously with a close social and political union there has to be some legislative coherence- having 35% country specific laws seems about reasonable to me. And my understanding was that we could make our own trade deals if we wanted to- it was just more beneficial to do it as a bloc. Am I wrong about that?

The leave narrative portrayed the UK as a helpless member of the EU, devoid of any say or power. That was the insinuation of the Turkey joining poster, that there was nothing the UK could have done about it.

The issue is not whether remainers want Turkey to join or not but highlighting that the UK has a say in the running of the EU.

Hope I articulated this effectively.

It is interesting that when questioned I was happy to admit that a discussion on TTiP was outside expertise.

I have mentioned several times that points made about Norway, Switzerland and the fact that changes to the EU were not made 'behind out backs' are factually incorrect. Wrong. Not right. Simply not true.

No one has discussed this. Not one leaver has addressed the fact that a post several of them liked contained factual inaccuracies.

If you vote for reasons that are clearly incorrect you must expect people to correct you on these matters.

Hope I articulated this effectively.

No - you didn't answer the question.
I thought this whole thread was about being able to articulate a personal response.

Why would you want to veto Turkey (or any other country) if they met the criteria to join the EU?

You can say, "I wouldn't want to use the veto" - if that's your answer.

@malificent7 Notice how most of the reasons to leave stated in the Telegraph article talk about getting rid of environmental legislation that protects our planet.

How ironic that a superior intelligent and educated remainer should make the basic error of thinking 5/20 is equal to "most".

@Clavinova

Can you articulate please why you would want to veto Turkey if they met all the criteria for joining the EU?

Well given that I am an individual person, it wouldn't really if I did

Assuming you mean why might a member country might veto an accession country that had met all the criteria, I agree it seems an unlikely scenario given that I would hope objections to the country itself were addressed within the relevant individual Acquis chapter, meaning the country would not have that chapter completed in the first place and therefore would not be able to complete the process until it's resolved.

However, even if all chapters have been met, a member state can still decide not to ratify the accession. I guess the most likely scenarios are those that don't pertain to the country itself, eg a state feels the EU has other external or internal pressures that will be exacerbated by an accession at that time, or has concerns about expansion as a whole.

I guess there could be an objection to the country for some non-criteria reason but I'm struggling to think of an example one that wouldn't have prevented the relevant chapter being met in the first place. That's not to say it can't be done - it totally can, just I can't think of an example.

(Or course to date Turkey hasn't wanted to make the socio-political changes necessary meet the criteria. And then there is Cyprus...)

No blibby. I accepted your reasoning... Still disagree as I think the power being given to large corporations is the stiff of nightmares.

“Why would you want to veto Turkey (or any other country) if they met the criteria to join the EU?“
I wouldn’t-as things currently stand. I presume that there might be circumstances in the future where the veto might be necessary. No idea what they might be, though.

Blibbyblobby
You still didn't really answer the question.

Oh well, if none of you can think of an obvious reason to veto other countries joining the EU - then I guess the veto is very unlikely to be used.

“AlecTrevelyan006

most people vote in every election pretty much on their gut feeling”

This is very true but the difference is they can change their minds every 5 years and not irrevocably impact the nation for generations to come.

@Clavinova

Blibbyblobby - You still didn't really answer the question

Right, before I start, because this seems to be a bit of a rabbit hole, let's remember the reason I mentioned the veto was specifically to refute the Telegraph's assertion that the UK would not be able to stop Turkey joining. That is just plain wrong. Whether or not you think we would block them, there is no doubt that we could.

Ok, that said, back to the rabbit hole :)

Well, the problem with the question as you put it is that all the foreseeable, reasonable reasons why a member state might want to block an accession country are covered in the Acquis chapters (the "criteria") in the first place.

I can imagine blocking Turkey right now due to: human rights abuses, concerns about their non-EU border security, political abuses, environment protections... but all those are part of the accession criteria which your question scenario specifically defined as having been met.

So what you are really asking is "for what unforeseeable reason might the veto be used?" Which is by definition not something I can foresee! Which is what a few people have explained to you already.

So I think I gave you a couple of valid answers - feeling the EU is not stable enough at the point to accept a new member, or wanting to stop expansion as a whole due to changes since the accession process started.

Out of interest, what sort of answer were you expecting? What objections are you thinking of that would not be part of the accession criteria in the first place?

Brexit is going to happen.
The process started over 1,000 days ago
It will not be complete for many thousands of days to come.

Globalisation will carry on
The EU will continue to develop
The UK will have to find a new place in the world with a voice of 60m people rather than as part of 500m
so be it

Costanza, couldn't agree more. I know at least two leave voters who are very highly educated, extremely intelligence, can take part in a debate very well and are brilliant at explaining themselves. They understand politics better than most people get if you speak to any remainers, they must be uneducated, unintelligent racists when they are far from it. I voted to leave and will never attempt to explain my reason as i struggle to explain myself. We suspect I have Asperger's and so struggle to put the words together to form an argument. I know what I want to say but it never comes out that way so I don't put myself through the stress and anxiety of it. I let my DH do the explaining as he's far better at it than me. If I was like this with a remainer, I'd be having insults hurled at me.

Oh, in case it's not clear - the member states have to agree that each criterion is met as well. It's not just a case of the EU ticking boxes. So we have a veto each step of the way and one at the end as well. Hence the point that a country is pretty unlikely to pass each chapter and then get veto'd.. not because we are somehow maneuvered by the EU into not being able to veto them, but because we've had loads of opportunity to do so already.