I want the visitor to be informed that clicking the button places a cookie on their computer and why that is so that clicking the button is an informed choice. The other option is to not click the button.
To try and perhaps explain a different way, that's exactly what's not legal. According to the directive, consent must be free, and sites must also be usable if no consent is given. The setup where you either accept cookies or you can't use the site at all is exactly what's disallowed.
Right, but the site can't be used without the cookie since it's required for the functionality. Am I really not allowed to inform my visitors of this fact (even though I'm not required to)?
If you'd like you can replace the "Cookie Consent" text with "Cookie Notice", and "Consent To The Cookie And Begin" with a single "Begin".
I'm not a lawyer to understand the implication of asking consent on something that doesn't require consent. Sounds like a non-issue to me, and yak shaving. I would doubt that anyone would bat an eye at that.
However, you that notice also states that "and which websites you would like to see more of.". I'm not sure how that information is stored in the backend and how often is deleted, but that could be considered profiling.
You could have users consent to the preference information only, standard history cookies being implicit/essential functionality.
Alternatively 2, just change the text to ~ "this functionality essentially requires cookie to avoid repetition, and drilling down based on preferences", with a "sounds good to me" button. Might want to have cookies expire on browser close.
