Does anyone else find themselves getting more sympathetic to the other side

[whydidhesaythat]

I don't know if this is just another stage in the cycle of grief but I'm starting to feel that:

Those of us who were doing very nicely out of Europe thank you ignored those who didn't

EU money can go into buildings but that's not the same thing as helping people

People outside the urban centres felt the EU was just another siphon of power away from them

London patronises the regions

Not everyone got to go on a gap year to a European country so why should they be bothered about my kids having one?

There actually is a non racist anti immigration argument

I'm not saying any of this right, it may just be another reaction....but does anyone else find themselves empathising with the other side more than they did?

"Aren't senior civil servants told what to do by the elected MPs though??"

In effect, yes. But their "mandate" is to the Crown in Parliament. They cannot actually be forced to do anything and have a duty to refuse to do anything which is contrary to the best interests of the aforementioned "Crown in Parliament"
I know this stuff. Many moons ago I was one

Dacre it was just a "for example", it could equally have been Birmingham or Cardiff or wherever. My laziness in going for a vague 2 letter region :)

I completely agree OP.
It has opened my eyes to my own complacent and patronising views of other's views. I don't agree with the leave vote at all, and personally don't know anyone who voted it, but have realised that they had their own reasons to vote as they did - rightly or wrongly as time will tell - and what the hell do I know more than them?
I am starting to question myself a lot more and the media as well. Scary to see all the politicians tripping up but at the same time has made me realise that they are only human too.
It has been positive to at least see people engaging with politics again even if it has been ugly.

Dragons It could be argued EU funding creates a gvt gap. The UK pays into the EU a fixed amount based on budgets, whilst EU funding is applied for by groups/regions based on EU funding criteria.
For example farmers, the EU spends 40% (used to be 70%) of its budget subsidising farmers (and pushing up food prices for consumers), so the UK govt does not support farmers, knowing the EU money is there.
If the EU provide funding, then the UK govt will not as there would then be less EU funding in the UK - which increases our costs because our payments in are fixed.
There is no reason EU funding cannot be replaced in its entirety by UK govt funding and the surplus used for other things.

How do you fix the less tangible financial benefits of the EU then?!? The combined benefits would equal an amount that's likely greater than the EU fee.

"personally don't know anyone who voted it, but have realised that they had their own reasons to vote as they did - rightly or wrongly as time will tell - and what the hell do I know more than them? "

I really think that sentence needs to be qualified. I am absolutely sure you know more than some of them.

That's part of the problem, isn't it? There must, of course, have been people who voted to stay for bonkers reasons. And there must have been others who voted remain because they didn't understand or were frightened of change, so opted for the status quo. But there have been enough leave voters publicly stating reasons which are clearly bonkers, or objectionable, or ill judged or just plain factually incorrect that they a)taint other leavers by association and b) absolutely infuriate the remainders because the majority was so small.

There is no reason EU funding cannot be replaced in its entirety by UK govt funding and the surplus used for other things

There is because we will likely be going on to an EEA/EFTA trade model where we will continue to make substantial EU budget payments without the benefits of being a full member, as well as accepting EU regulations.

So a good proportion of the money that went to the EU will still go.

Just want to throw this article that I have looked at previously into the mix, any thoughts?

fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

And we will still have to adhere to eu regulations and free movement of labour.

My issue with the deficit stated above, is not the unquantifiable value that the deficit provides in terms of access to trade/jobs/subsidies etc... Which we can all agree does provide benefits to certain sections of the community, it is the fact that as the economies of other poorer member states continue to fail and as the EU widens to incorporate more members with weak economies, that the balance would shift so far that the deficit in what we get back from the EU would be potentially huge (more so than it is already) and the pressure on this country to remain part of a wider european piggy bank would grow and grow. A major factor that persuaded me to vote leave.

Sorry, should make clear that I am referring to the stated deficit in the linked article (poorly so go easy on me... 😉)

My laziness in going for a vague 2 letter region

I'm tempted to do the calculations for various regions, actually.

Two PPs gave examples from UK and Asia of deprived DC getting ahead through unusual talent, determination etc, but I just can't fathom how the average under-30 manages now, if they are without parental financing or a parental home to stay on in.

Carol yes, I do see that argument could be made - but I think we're getting in to chicken and egg territory and probably will never agree!

In my - admittedly limited - experience of EU-funded projects, funding was allocated to areas already defined as deprived. The EU money sought to address the indicators of deprivation because the UK govt (of both parties) had not invested accordingly over many years. The EU wasn't replacing funding, it was adding it. I just don't see this changing now. It's like the mythical £350m for the NHS, just because there may well be funds that are not diverted to the EU post-Brexit doesn't mean that they'll be spent where we feel that they ought to be.

I also have to agree with "Snowbells" that to me the value of EU membership was more than just a money in/money out equation.

To clarify, for me, it is not so much the EU that exists now that worries me (although it isnt great!) it is the EU of the future. Everyone asks, 'what is the plan?', 'give me reasons why we will be better off?' Etc. I dont know, I really dont, but I genuinely feel that the rot was setting for us in in the EU and that the future if we stayed in would be worse than anything we could imagine happening as a result of Brexit. A hobsons choice I suppose, but on balance I still feel I made the right choice.

Dacre I'd be really interested in that too tbh. If you do it then pls post your findings!

I might just do that tomorrow.

I thought that the 350 thingy had nothing to do with the rebate but with the fact that it didnt include the money the uk gets back, eg through the farming helps, in extend t in deprived areas such the NE or Wales etc...

Tbh even though going out of the EU will cause me a big headache as a person, I think going out was a very good idea. A very good thing for the EU that wants to go in a certain direction, a direction that the uk didn't want to go.
Also good for the uk because it has always being hesitant with the EU anyway. At least it will be able to do as it pleases.

What I am very worried about for the uk is human rights and protection of the most disadvantaged in the society. It's already very poor. Poor enough that, if it wasn't for DH, I would have moved somewhere else.
I think it will get much much worse.

summer the uk has always a right to use their veto to the entrance in the with of other countries.
The U.K. hasn't used that right to stop so 'many'eastern countries, incl Poland, to come in. (Whereas France did to stop the U.K. going in for example)

Therefore I would see the entrance of these countries in the EU as my government responsibility rather than the EU responsibility.
We welcomed them in the EU! We can't say now that they should never have been accepted and it's not our fault.

One veto, 28 member states... If we are the only ones to veto the decision to allow a specific country to join (or are in a minority veto) then where does that leave us? And the more members that join, the more diluted that veto becomes.

So technically, we dont have much of a say in what we ultimately pay out for if we remained in the EU going forward.

Ohwhat do you know what the word "veto" means? Cos your post above strongly suggests that you don't.

Oh here we go.

Apparently not.

So technically, we dont have much of a say in what we ultimately pay out for if we remained in the EU going forward

Well now we have none. I'm not sure why you see that as plus.