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.

Boney I didn't say all leavers voted for the same reasons. There was a post that contains factual inaccuracies at least 2 leave supporters indicated they liked and supported this post.

Some leave supporters won't agree with those posts but if a remain post had factual inaccuracies I would pick it up. A leave poster makes mistakes and no one seems to care.

Leave or remain facts matter surely? If we lose sight of the importance of truth we really are down the rabbit hole.

It was stated categorically that Norway and Switzerland have access to the EU with no bureaucracy.

It was stated categorically that changes to the EU were brought in without our knowledge

This isn't a matter of opinion both are not true.

Norway and Switzerland do have to abide by EU regulations.
The SEA and Maastricht were debated and voted on in parliament and both were a big deal at the time.

Curiousabout your view that the EU institutions need change is valid. If you say the EU is 'undemocratic' you wrong.

One is an opinion - does it need change? How can we change it?

One is a fact. The EU is democratic by any constitutional measure.

Before I go to work - is it more important to defend your side or the truth?

Would you stand by a poster who is saying things that are not true because they are on your side. Would you be happy if your side were being rude?

Or are there some points were should all defend?

The truth? People calling each other names?

Do these matter more than sides?

It's all very well that other people can have a perfectly happy relationship with someone holding different political views. Obviously that's possible, if you love other things about each other and politics isn't a strong part of your identity, or if you're both comfortable with constant debate. It wouldn't be for me. I could no more live happily alongside someone who felt very differently on these issues without mentioning it all the time than I could with someone who denied women's rights, or didn't support gay marriage or something. I also don't consider those opinions, or any opinion really, as something someone has a right to hold without challenge, question or debate, and being downright told they are wrong sometimes. Obviously they are perfectly at liberty to argue back, avoid my company and stubbornly hold on to a view that flies in the face of reason, that's the maddening thing about freedom, but they don't have the right to have me shut me up about it. So this idea that the OP is not allowed to speak her mind to her partner without being told she is stepping out of line in some other way, is quite shocking to me.

This business that Norway and Switzerland are not bound by EU law is oddly persistent given that a quick click on Wikipedia will tell you otherwise.

It's probably because the winning margin was so small that so many leave voters are so tantrummy and aggressive about it. They must know that it can barely be considered the will of 'the people' when it's only just over half of those who voted.

As no one knows what life will be like out of the Eu why can remainders be so positive that it's the best option?

I've already lost my job which was partially EU funded because of the uncertainty.

I live in NI and quite like the peace that I voted for in the legally binding GFA referendum. The paramilitaries here are rubbing their hands in glee because of Brexit.
My friends work for a multinational manufacturing plant. It's location within the EU is crucial. The plant will close (move 20 miles down the road, across the border) with a loss of 100s of jobs and devastation to the economies of the town and surrounding villages.

Very real, very close to home and not at all Ridiculous to think that remaining is the best option for us Bagpuss.

I could no more live happily alongside someone who felt very differently on these issues without mentioning it all the time than I could with someone who denied women's rights, or didn't support gay marriage or something. I also don't consider those opinions, or any opinion really, as something someone has a right to hold without challenge, question or debate, and being downright told they are wrong sometimes.

Classic strawman here. Voting Tory/Labour, remain/leave is in no way comparable morally to someone who's anti-women's rights or homophobic.

So this idea that the OP is not allowed to speak her mind to her partner without being told she is stepping out of line in some other way, is quite shocking to me.

I haven't RTFT so may have missed it, but where has anyone said the OP is "not allowed" to speak her mind to her husband? It's perfectly fine to engage in measured, adult, respectful debate - but getting angry and hysterical (and to be fair I'm not sure that applies to the OP, but it certainly does to some other posters on these boards) is not OK.

As no one knows what life will be like out of the Eu why can remainders be so positive that it's the best option? Some people do remember what it was like to be outsde the EU

Lots of countries, the vast majority of countries, are outside the EU

Then there are some people, like Dione know the difference it has made to their country already (though cause and effect may not be 100%)

Lots of people have vastly differing experiences, imaginations, hopes, wished, understandings etc etc ... they all voted accordingly!

WIndows I'm not going round that roundabout again!

OOh! A sntence disappeared... sorry Dionne there was supposed to be

So even if they don't know what it will be like outside the EU they aready know some of the negatives

Yes, I did vote Leave. I understood that such things would happen, I also know many changes would have happened anyway and that some organsiations blatantly used Brexit as an excuse. .

BUT I wouldn't even begin to gainsay Dionnes experience and viewpoint. It is as valid as mine.

(I will add, for those who would say that a bit "I'm alright Jack" that my own business is also feeling the effects, as is the company DH works for.)

You don't get to say what opinions I find morally reprehensible, you just don't. I have friends who only date vegans, that's their right. Personally I find the leave campaign"s rejection of experts, and Tory austerity policies, of greater concern than animal rights. I am entitled to hold this
view and to voice it. You can disagree, avoid listening etc etc but you don't get to tell me I can't think it or say it.

Plenty of people have said she should leave her DH alone, they're glad she's not their wife, etc etc.

I don't know if anyone has noticed but it was 1971 when we were last outside the EU. Times have changed. All our neighbours are in the EU or EEA.

@Justheretogiveaviewfrommyworld first comment I read on this post and I have to laugh. Abusive? I've read several AIBU posts now about relationships and I swear in every one there's someone who goes completely OTT and throws the word 'abuse' around. Seriously get a grip and stop goading people.
OP I'm in a similar situations to you in that me and my partner have very different political views (he's a massive Tory and I'm definitely NOT!!!) this has caused so many arguments in the past as we have very different views on social welfare which is the area I work in so I feel very passionately about it and honestly the only agreement we've ever come to is to just agree to disagree. We now purposely don't speak about politics and all is fine.

Closet racist probs.

Some people do remember what it was like to be outsde the EU

The EU was something like eight countries strong in 1973, and had been going three-odd years. Most European countries were outside it.

I think it is intellectually dishonest to say that we can use those three years to say what it will be like to be an outsider to a 27-member-strong organisation that has been going for 50 years.

Oh, and to be precise, we've never been outside the EU as long as there has been an EU. We joined the European Economic Community, which became the EU.

Actually, I reverse myself. The EEC was founded on 1957.

Did you know that according to Wikipedia, the UK applied to join the EEC three times altogether? Apparently life outside it wasn't so good after all.

The UK was not a signatory of the three original treaties that were incorporated into what was then the European Communities, including the most well known of these, the 1957 Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC). The UK's applications to join in 1963 and 1967 were vetoed by the President of France, Charles de Gaulle, who said that "a number of aspects of Britain's economy, from working practices to agriculture" had "made Britain incompatible with Europe" and that Britain harboured a "deep-seated hostility" to any pan-European project.[1]

Perhaps de Gaulle had a point, eh?

The world was a very different place in 1971.

He did? He won't be alone in that.

Nah, turns out the world's the same. In 1971 we could have been considered a liability to Europe, but de Gaulle didn't get to veto us because he was:
a) no longer French president, and;
b) dead.

In 2019, we can be guess what, considered a liability to the European Union. I think 'considered' is a weak term for it, tbh.

I blame the Daily Mail.

In reality, apart from the fact that we have been forced to vote remain or leave, there is probably not a lot of difference between most leave and remain voters.

I don't know many people that are pro Europe in every way, and thought that the EU was absolutely perfect. Most Remainers would want some level of reform, better control of funds, better deal for UK fishermen etc etc.

It is more likely that there were Leavers that were opposed to the EU in every way and thought there nothing good about it. But most Leavers and Remainers would think it was a mixed bunch of good and bad.

The Remainers decided on balance that it was better to stay and work on the relationship. The Leavers thought that on balance it was better to divorce and be happy elsewhere.

If we strung us all on a rope with one end being 'The EU is perfect' and the other end being 'Destroy the EU', most of us are attached somewhere in the middle, appreciating a few things (like peace blossoming in Northern Ireland) and hating a few things (like the poor deal for UK fishermen). It is a great pity that people who mostly agree with each other have been forced to polarise their position and hate each other.

Remind me who represented UK fishing interests to the EU? Oh, yes, Nigel.

Over the three years that Nigel Farage was a member of the European Parliament Fisheries Committee, he attended one out of 42 meetings. Greenpeace research released today shows that during the three major votes to fix the flaws of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), Nigel Farage was in the building but failed to vote in favour of improving the legislation.

In 2013, Nigel Farage was again present but chose not to vote on the part of the reform of the CFP that introduces an obligation on governments to give more fishing quota to sustainable fishermen who contribute the most to the local, coastal economies. This would see the government giving more fishing quota to local, low impact fishing fleets, such as the fishermen featured in UKIP’s poster.

Greenpeace is currently undertaking a two month, pre-election tour of English and Welsh coastal marginal constituencies asking MPs and parliamentary candidates to pledge to become coastal champions if they win the next election. At the event in Ramsgate in the constituency of Thanet South, all the parliamentary candidates except Nigel Farage attended and pledged that if they won the next election they would work their hardest to get more fishing quota for the many angry fishermen who were at the event.

Ariana Densham, Greenpeace Oceans campaigner said:

“Local fishermen around the coast are struggling to survive and are furious after neglect by successive governments. But they will not be fooled by UKIP’s claim that they are standing up for them because most, if not every time there has been a major vote in Europe that would have given them a better deal, they don’t vote for it. The new EU law on fishing has been reformed and if implemented by national governments, it will fix many of the serious problems faced by fishermen. UKIP did not lift a finger to support this huge win for local fishermen. Like it or not, the EU provides the solution for the problem and the next government must implement the new EU fishing law and stop giving the lion’s share of fishing quota to industrial and foreign fishing corporations at the expense of local, sustainable fishermen.”

The next stop on the Greenpeace election tour is Grimsby on Saturday. The tour will culminate just days before the election in the Fisheries Minister George Eustice’s constituency of Hayle. The campaigners are hoping that the Minister will respond to the breadth of support for the campaign from the public and cross party MPs and candidates as he is currently refusing to give more quota to local, sustainable fishermen as required by EU law.

Greenpeace launched the campaign ‘Our net gain’ in November last year with the shocking statistic that nearly half of the English quota is used by foreign industrial fishing corporations. While a meagre six per cent is given to local, low impact fishermen who fish sustainably and directly contribute to local economies. Greenpeace believes that through putting pressure in these key coastal battle grounds is a prime opportunity to force the next government to finally put local fishermen first in the queue for fishing quota.

ENDS

For more information, please call Kate Blagojevic on 07801 212 959

Common Fisheries Policy:

v There were 3 key votes on the CFP legislation:

1. The Common fisheries policy (CFP) regulation – on 6 Feb 2013. This law was passed with 502 in favour (75%). 9 out of 10 UKIP MEPs abstained (in opposition to the position of their EU group). Nigel Farage was the only UKIP MEP that didn’t vote, even though he would have been in the building.

term7.votewatch.eu/en/common-fisheries-policy-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-legislative-resolution-ordinary-legislativ.html

2.   The Common market organisation (CMO) regulation – on 12 Sept 2012. This law was passed with 620 in favour (92%).  5 out of 9 UKIP MEPs abstained and 1 voted against the law (all in opposition to the position of their EU group). 3 MEPs didn’t vote at all: 1 was entirely absent, and 2 – including Farage – didn’t vote, even though they would have been in the building.
   

term7.votewatch.eu/en/common-organisation-of-the-markets-in-fishery-and-aquaculture-products-draft-legislative-resolution–3.html

1. Third, the European maritime fisheries fund (EMFF) regulation – on 14 April 2014. This law was passed with 473 votes in favour (84%). 5 out of 9 UKIP MEPs voted against the law (in opposition to the position of their EU group). Of the remaining 4 MEPs that didn’t vote, 1 was absent and 3 – including Farage – would have been in the building, but didn’t vote.

term7.votewatch.eu/en/european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-legislative-resolution-ordina.html

v Fourth on environmental and social criteria. There was a vote for an amendment to the CFP regulation on using environmental and social criteria to allocate fishing opportunities and incentives for low impact fishing (this is more or less article 17 of the final regulation) – on 6 Feb 2013

This amendment was passed with 366 in favour (55%). 9 out of 10 UKIP MEPs abstained (in line with the position of their EU group) but Nigel Farage again was the only UKIP MEP who didn’t vote, even though he would have been in the building.

term7.votewatch.eu/en/common-fisheries-policy-draft-legislative-resolution-after-article-16-amendment-227-ordinary-legisla.html

Nigel Farage turned up to just one out of 42 meetings on the fisheries committee

I kind of agree that some sort of compromise is/was the only proper way forward. Unfortunately all the compromises have this "worst of all worlds" feel to them as you end up being a rule taker in relation to large swathes of EU law. This is effectively the price Norway pays for sovereignty over fisheries. It feels mad, which is why Parliament has been so vehemently against May's deal. It's unlike most compromises which both sides can see some merit in - in a lot of cases people can probably see more logic in the other side's argument than they can in the compromise. But no deal is such a bad idea, and so far from what was promised, that a second referendum may be the least worst option on the table at this point.