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?

Thanks dragons. Yes, me too. I really hope that the ESF will be replaced by a British social fund to help those in disadvantaged areas.

If you read my earlier posts about the widening deficit, in relation to the article I posted then you will understand what I mean in terms of not having a say. Please dont be rude and condescending toward me, I explained that I was poorly and if I am not explaining myself properly then I apologise, but there is no need to belittle me or force me to prove my understanding of these issues.

Yes, me too. I really hope that the ESF will be replaced by a British social fund to help those in disadvantaged areas

Why would it though? The reason areas such as Cornwall and parts of Wales are deprived is because they've been ignored by successive governments. That's why the EU stepped in.

Between payments to the EU for an EEA/EFTA deal which will be around 55% or more of what we paid for full EU membership, and the tanking of the economy after Brexit - there won't be any spare cash anyway.

I'm ill too as it goes but I'm not using that as an excuse for poorly considered opinions.

The point is that as long as we had a seat in Brussels, we had power to affect EU policy, we could veto decisions we didn't like, and could opt out of some issues completely (the FTT for example).

Now we have no say in how Brussels runs itself, nor in the laws it makes which we will have to implement.

Mann the govt already provides match funding, remember, so who is to say this funding will not continue along with money from the alleged 45% not spent on Europe.

Manon, I mean.

Oh go away Manon, its not an excuse for a poorly considered opinion. It is to counter the fact that I am possibly not illustrating my point clearly enough due to feeling unwell. Why dont you Goad someone else?

OhWhat I'm sorry you're feeling poorly. I don't think Manon was being goady tbh, it was just a bit confusing when you wrote about a diluted veto, but I'm sure that's not what you meant.

It's rubbish being ill (I am too, must be this thread!).

Thanks Dragons appreciated , but I disagree about the goadiness.

I don't understand it either tbh.
If the uk uses its veto to say 'no we don't want let's say Poland to join' then poland just doesn't join, regardless of how many other countries are saying YES.
That's why I think that the uk could have said NO to the eastern countries joining (just as it stop turkey joining).
As it didnt use the veto and approved eastern countries joining, then that means it has fully consented fir that to happen?

Sorry actually I should have used the past tense.
The U.K. could Have stopped the entry of Turkey etc...
Obviously now it's not an option anymore.

not 'diluted' veto, definetely too simplistic a term.... What I mean, is a veto that holds less sway, Ie, as I understand it, A veto will only block a proposed change (very loose description) if there is a substantial minority that align with that veto?
So, what I am saying, is that the interests of those who wish to block (veto) could be diminished against a majority vote 'for' a new proposal (again loose term) put forward that could greatly benefit a new/incoming member, but significantly disadvantage an existing member who has their veto overuled by a vested majority.

Yes, I agree, leaving removes our say, but it also gives us back control over our own spending. However, I cannot disagree that there are no guarantees as to how that money will be spent by UK government. Maybe that is something worthy of a petition.

Ok, Im reading back what I have just said amd I am still not sure if I am making my point clear, but there you have it nonetheless, hopefully someone can pick between my poor presentation of the point and see what I am getting at!

Nope in that case if I u detests do well, one country vetoing the entrance means no entrance.
That's a VERY powerful tool.

Which hasn't been used.

Sorry totally not understandable!

ONE country on its own can stop the whole process. There is no need to have others joining in or a small minority.
Just ONE vote.

Vetos in the EU have several different connotations depending on the matter at hand. It is not by any means a black and white process, and to be fair, I have never claimed to be an expert in the inner workings and constitutional arrangements within. I have given over my point of view (probably not too well) but my point of view is no less relevant than anyone elses here. Unless merkel, juncker, cameron, may etc fancy jumping in on the conversation! Lol

Everything? Really? I didnt understand that to be the case? I was under the impression that the veto was not as straight forward as just one vote to 'block' winning, I must have been reading the wrong research.

And to my knowledge, you are correct, we did not veto Poland joining, although this is a much wider issue than Poland imho.

Some issues require unanimous agreement of all states, such as a country joining the EU, or our joining the EEA. In that case one veto blocks the whole thing.

Other than that most EU decisions are made my majority vote or consensus.

I don't see how we have control back of our spending when we will be paying the EU 55% of what we used to, and the economy has tanked in response to Brexit.

Thanks Manon for clarifying, that makes sense. I wasn't sure what the veto applied to exactly either, so that's really helpful.

Can you clarify the 55% for me Manon? I was not aware of this, are you saying, that once we have exited the EU we will still pay 55% of our previous member fee as an ongoing contribution? Or do you mean just for the continuing duration of our membership? (Which I agree could be protracted) Or does this figure hinge on our ability to retain access to the single market?

Also Manon, what is your profession? (personal question so feel free to refuse to answer) as you present as someone who has a specific working knowledge of the EU?

The most likely Brexit option, according to media and Parliamentary sources, is an EEA/EFTA deal - ie leaving the EU, and joining the European Economic Area and the European Free Trade Area. We need to retain access to the single market and free trade as roughly half our imports and exports are with Europe.

On that model we pay contributions to the EU (the Norwegians pay €100 per capita while we paid €180 for full EU membership) we have to enact EU legislation, some of which must be passed as national law, but we have no power to form that legislation. In return for full access to the single market we have to accept freedom of movement.

May has indicated that she will be trying to place limits on freedom of movement, which implies we will not have some but not complete access to the single market.

If we want in the single market, we pay. Then we accept all the rules the other countries make.

A veto means just that.

The UK was the architect of EU expansion into Eastern Europe, just as it has been the cheerleader of TTIP so far. We could have delayed Eastern European freedom of movement into the UK if the government at the time had chosen to.

The popular image of the UK being the whipping boy of the EU is far from accurate. It's 28 countries with their own priorities working together to get the best overall deal for everyone. It requires give and take. The UK has had many more concessions than any other country. We just don't like the giving part.

Ironically, despite claiming to be constantly bullied into submission by the EU, we now expect them to give us even better terms on a plate because we're so important they can't say no. We also think most of the rest of the world will be dancing to our tune to make speedy trade deals massively in our favour because, apparently, showing ourselves to be an unpredictable and difficult partner, we are irresistible. Or maybe we are just poorly informed and deluded.

I don't present myself as anything, I have no special knowledge that can't be gleaned from media and internet sources. The information is out there.

Or maybe we are just poorly informed and deluded. Or maybe we are trying to pretend that we still have an Empire.