Brexit- is it a feminist issue?

Well, womanformallyknownaswoman, Amnesty has an article about the benefits of the Human Rights Act, which also includes interesting cases, including a case, where it was of help to a woman who repeatedly fled her violent husband.

www.amnesty.org.uk/eight-reasons-why-human-rights-act-has-made-uk-better-place-british-bill-of-rights

But it would obviously be interesting to hear from an academic in the field, what is or isn't really at stake if the UK leaves EJC jurisdiction.

I came across this about May wanting to repeal the Human Rights Act after Brexit. I know she loathes the ECHR after all the abuse of process with deporting that hate preacher, irrespective I don’t trust her and the Tores on this - I want to know what baby will be thrown out by them with the bathwater

Isn’t Rosa on here?

Thus I have the impression that all would be worse off not having access to the ECJ

Interesting. Yeah, I'd definitely like to hear from someone in the field what the implications are.

Thx deepwatersolo

I was thinking about legislation wise - according to the BBC: So if the government failed to agree post-transition terms with the EU and the UK ended up with a "no deal" Brexit, then the UK could leave ECJ jurisdiction in March 2019. But that is not the government's current policy. The Cabinet Office told us Mr Lidington's comments would only apply in a no deal scenario.

Thus I have the impression that all would be worse off not having access to the ECJ, especially women as there would be nowhere except UN to act as a recourse to in the event the UK courts ruled against a particular important precedent affecting women. We need Rosa Freedman or another lawyer's informed perspective ....

If you have signed up to Free Movement of Goods, then you can't decide to stop the Free Movement of Goods.

Correct. (We all know people at the Brenner also suffer from the loud noise, which those eco-lorries also make, but anyway). The question is, how do you get rid of this free movement of goods, if the people turn against it? This is the very point of contention. Switzerland does not allow as broad lorries as the EU does, which rids them of many problems Austria cannot get rid of.

Austria builds a train tunnel to avoid everything being transported by lorries and going down the train route instead. Unfortunately Germany shits on this green solution (no more interested in building the continuation of the railway), as does Italy, and Austria can't force them, because it signed up to the 'free movement of goods'. Were it Switzerland Austria could force this way more easily.

I cannot understand how you cannot grasp that the EU prevents a lot of democratic, sustainable solutions, because it prioritizes the profits of corporations. It is there in plain sight.

Take TTIP: The EU would not accept people's 'Stop TTIP' initiative, because TTIP had not been negotiated yet. And at the same time said, once things are negotiated it is too late. The miffed reaction to the (basically forced) consultation results about investment ISDS (investor state settlement court) was patently absurd.

It cannot be that people need to go on barricades, threaten unrest and whatnot to get Brussel to listen, while the same Brussels slavishly hangs on the lips of all kinds of lobbyists.

When this is the only way to be heard, it becomes ridiculous (though I commend them):

deepwatersolo if you can read these links, then I don't understand why you are posting them in support of your position that the EU objected to a nighttime ban for lorries.

The EU had no problem whatsoever with a nighttime ban for lorries.

It threatened to take Austria to the European Court of Justice for breaking the European treaty (specifically for interfering with the Free Movement of Goods) because Austria then passed a law that banned the transport of certain types of goods on that stretch of road altogether.

So if you transport the right kind of goods (food or livestock for instance), your lorry can emit as many noxious gasses as you like and if you transport the wrong kind of goods (tiles or cars for instance), it didn't matter how clean your lorry's emissions were, they were simply not allowed to be transported on the road.

This was also harshly criticised within Austria with opposition parties protesting and the regional government of Südtirol seeking to sue its own government over this interference with the transport of goods in its region.

The EU and Austria then came to an agreement whereby the transport of these types of goods is allowed if they are transported in the most environmentally friendly type of lorry. Following this compromise almost two years ago, the EU stopped proceedings and the ban was put in place.

If France suddenly stopped all transport of certain types of goods via its ferry ports or the Eurotunnel, you can bet that the UK Government would have wanted the EU to take action against France for breaking the EU treaty as well. And rightly so. If you have signed up to Free Movement of Goods, then you can't decide to stop the Free Movement of Goods.

Is there a summary anywhere of pros and cons for women?

Personally, I think that is hard to do, as it depends on where the UK will drift (the EU is kind of a 'middle ground' countries are bound to, which can be good or bad, obviously).
So, it would have to be a list that says: What would the Tories want to do, if no longer held back by the EU and what would Labour want to do, if no longer held back... and then extrapolate from there.

If Brexit means an economic hit for the UK as most predict (just as it will be a hit for Europe), I believe this will be an excellent opening for Tories to advocate more austerity, less workers rights (to attract corporations), lower taxes for corporations... and I am not sure Labour would effectively combat that, let alone have any chance to implement any reforms that curb austerity - because costs (even if economically it makes sense to spend the money, the people not at the bottom of the economy may be inclined to consider it 'irresponsible', because so many have now bought into this neoliberal mind set)... So that (more austerity, less protections) will hit women disproportionally, then.

Is there a summary anywhere of pros and cons for women? - those general threads are long and wide ranging - tried search and nothing came up

And here an Austrian Social Democratic politician, suggesting to combat loan dumping by partially restricting job markets for people from other EU countries is rebuffed by the EU. (Of course he was also criticized by the Austrian conservatives, who love dumping wages).

www.oe24.at/oesterreich/politik/EU-Arbeitnehmerfreizuegigkeit-Niessl-Vorstoss-stoesst-auf-Ablehnung/341274392

Charlie if you think that these restrictions on Austrian Social Democracy by the EU to protect Austrian workers has nothing to do with the rise of the populist right in Austria which now has its base in the working class, you are delusional.

I can read that, Charlie. The fact of the matter is that Austria did introduce these measures against the threat of the EU, which battles against it by lawfare.

www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=Fahrverbot+Tirol+EU+verfahren

derstandard.at/2000041921836/Sektorales-Fahrverbot-in-Tirol-EU-leitet-offenbar-Verfahren-ein?ti=81f08aVs_KfIANd3TbYynwch3VWSIFCd7CBhvOcjY_KLpkouRM-ORMsBV9Mqhj6VX2-r6-CnLhHilj_g97jhqXUJAz6VV8n_ftKgTEatkKiXiymc-vmlymN_TuBsqWXkphs6UYKgH0ehSy1UOD4fLIrqOLU.&at=

So, they act in DEFIANCE of the EU that says the free traffick of goods is more important than the wellbeing of the people.

And, regarding border closures the Brenner was treated differently. Because in the EU, quod licet Jovi non licet Bovi, and Germany has the power to get special treatment.

www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/europa/europaeische_union/816872_Grenzkontrollen-verlaengert-Brenner-ausgenommen.html

The blindness to FACTS of pro-EU people like you, about the deficits the EU has, will be the EU's downfall, as it makes any attempts to its reform impossible.

deepwatersolo I know you probably can't read this, but here is the official page of the Austrian government with their night time and weekend bans for lorries. This is regulated via

Nachtfahrverbot (§ 42 Abs. 6 StVO)
Wochenendefahrverbot (§ 42 Ab. 1-5 StVO)

Germany has similar rules which are strictly enforced. The Brenner is of course included in these rules. There are also a number of additional days and times when lorries are not allowed to drive throughout the year.

I have no idea where you are getting this stuff from, but I often find that a simple search in the native languages of these countries can be quite enlightening if you ever wish to actually fact-check these claims.

But let's just agree to disagree, shall we? I've found that most of these arguments are very easily disproven and yet it seems to make no difference whatsoever. People's deeply held beliefs are rarely swayed by facts. I know, because in recent history I changed my mind in two areas where I had lifelong and deeply held beliefs and I remember both what it took to get me there and how uncomfortable the whole experience was. So I won't be looking at any of the other examples you bring, because it seems that you are quite entrenched in your views and I don't want us to pointlessly keep at it.

Let me just finish by saying this:

the EU is not "a Neo-liberal endeavour" but a reflection of the prevailing political make-up of its member states.

Before the Fall of the Wall and immediately afterwards, social-democratic and socialist governments tended to dominate across the then member states. The fall of communism - for whatever reason - motivated a large number of European social-democratic parties to embrace Neo-liberalism and to give up their socialist principles.

Coupled with the increasing popularity of conservative parties, this lead to a gradual change in the make-up of the European Parliament as well as the European Council and towards more conservative and Neo-liberal policies coming to the fore and eventually dominating EU policy making.

This is where we are now. Change the prevailing political forces in EU member states back to the left* and policy-wise the EU itself will move towards more social-democratic principles again. They haven't, by the way, been entirely abandoned. Much of EU policy making remains left of centre, but it has undeniably been changed by developments in the domestic political landscape of its member states.

The old dichotomy of left and right wing politics is not only losing much of its foundation (and attraction), the picture is also complicated by the rise of extremist movements. So it's maybe not "a shift to the left" that we need but a new way of doing politics. Who knows. But what we do know is that the EU is not a fixed entity but one that changes with its member states.*

No Deal is being predicted that it would cause a drop in GDP which would be so big that it would cause a depression in this country.

Combine that with the effects of austerity already and women will suffer hugely.

No deal Brexit represents taking us back to pre-victorian ideas in other areas too.

Charlie I wasn‘t aware this loophole had been tackled, good news then. The point that the EU is a neoliberal endeavour still stands. The way the EU has prevented Southern European countries from progressive monetary policies that the people demanded is appalling. We are reaping the fruits with the current Italian government (yeah, you can‘t bring in a technocratic government every time you don‘t like the election results in Italy).
And remember the refugee crisis? Now, one can argue for or against closing the national borders, but the EU allowing all kinds of borders being closed/controlled, including all German ones in the South, while forbidding the Brenner (One specific Italian/Austrian border) to be closed smacks of the transit lobby getting their way.
Speaking of which: The EU pursues action against Austria for not taking measures against the bad air quality on said transit route, while at the same time vetoing the time tested measure of restricting commercial transport on that route during night time. The people are for it, it was a successful measure before Austria joined the EU, but - alas - the EU trumps Democracy (or alternatively argues that all EU citizens have a say in this matter, which is patently ridiculous when it comes to regional matters as these).
I could write a book about all the instances when special interests trump the will of the people in the EU.
Obviously, the EU has reigned in some of the worst ideas of the Tories, but that, frankly, does not say much.

deepwatersolo I've got the feeling nothing I say will persuade you other wise but

On 29 May 2018 the EU did just what you demand - close the loophole that allows the situation you describe.

The UK Government attempted to stop the new law being passed by dragging its feet and abstaining in the European Council, but thankfully, their machinations proved unsuccessful and the law was passed. Member states now have two years to fully implement and enforce the new law.

Since we are leaving however, and the UK Government opposed this law from the outset, it won't now come into force in Britain.

Current govt are keen to roll back employee rights which will disproportinately affect women = womens issue

If food etc becomes less easy somehow it will be womens job to make sure somehow meals are still provided kids are fed etc

Loss of lots of low paid workers thinking care workers this will fall back to women as unpaid work?

Charlie I live in an area where workers are in fierece competition with Polish workers employed by Polish companies, who demand way less money than natives because they can live on less. Life in Poland is way cheaper, and while in my area (where rents are high) to work, they rent one room with 10 beds.
The EU could close loopholes so that our minimum wages are not circumvented, but does not and prevents national measures.

The currently existing EU is a neoliberal endeavor, no point in denying it. Probably not as bad as the UK, but that‘s about it.

FloralBunting

Yep, agree with all of that. A pity really, in these febrile times one picks up all manner of good points from all sorts of unexpected sources of wisdom. Jeremy is not one of these sources.

and a leftist argument could be make that it will allow better protections for workers or vulnerable groups that the EU would never accept

I have no idea where this myth is coming from. Have you ever tried to sack someone in Germany? DH just spent 6 months in a tight negotiation with a guy who had to be sacked because his work was terrible but despite 12 months worth of documented below par performance (and other issues), worker protection laws are so stringent in Germany that employers can end up paying a fortune (as happened in this case). DH's employer is a US company and I did urge him to inform them before opening a branch in Germany that you couldn't just hire and fire like they do in the States, especially not women, but they honestly couldn't imagine how strongly protected employees are there.

Same goes for mothers and pregnant women - they have the automatic right to paid leave for the last six weeks before and the first eight weeks after the birth (the former is voluntary, the latter is mandatory leave). At an absolute minimum, they are also protected from being fired during and for four months after pregnancy, even if they miscarry.

Each parent has the right to 3 years unpaid leave until the child is eight, and on top of a generous child benefit paid by the state which increases with the second and third child, they also receive what is called "Elterngeld", an income replacement benefit that ranges from €300 to €1800 for those who reduce their hours to between 30hrs and 0 hrs per week for up to 12 months (this includes self-employed parents, freelancers and those who aren't working).

And so on. There may be a veritable jungle of rules in Germany, they do love their rules, but these rules protect workers, pregnant women, parents etc way way beyond anything the UK does and Germany is still in the EU.

It's not perfect, by no means is it anywhere near perfect, but it's a damn sight better than what successive UK government have provided. Of course, the reasons for that lie in the fact that unions are strong, union membership is high and providing social security is very much a conservative concern.

So the German Conservatives don't believe in "big society" or in a small state or anything like that. They subscribe to the idea that a happy workforce is more productive, hence much better conditions including for childcare and its costs. (My mother whose charity provides all kind of services - counselling, childcare, personal care, women's refuge etc) was certainly cured from voting Labour when the German Social Democrat Government before Merkel wholeheartedly embraced Neoliberalism and cut cut cut.)

The problem about getting in cheap workers has actually also been identified by the EU and rectified via a new law, but if you're only listening to Corbyn on this, you're bound to be unaware because he seems to not know any of this.

And btw, these worker protections don't just exist in Germany or Scandinavian and Western European countries, there are a number of excellent provisions also in Eastern European member states (and as we know there are of course shitty rules in others).

Fact is, UK workers get a rough deal in many respects, but that's not the fault of the EU and I find it naive in the extreme to think that leaving the EU is going to lead to better conditions.

I had a lot of respect for Tony Benn. I think Corbyn is a very, very pale imitation of any of the great conscience politicians of the past, and lacks original thought and any leadership courage. He's a gobshite minor union official who got pushed to the front of the crowd and his ego won't let him back down.

It's worked very well for him so far, but he's surrounded by competing manipulators who certainly don't have women's rights at the forefront of their concerns, and even if he's a nice old bloke who could grasp the issues, which I don't believe anyway, he doesn't possess the ability to lead effectively on anything at all so it wouldn't matter anyway.

As I understand it, the various free trade agreements that exist around the world make it harder for a socialist like Jeremy Corby to ever implement his policies.

For instance: imagine if Labour came to power and banned patents on medicines. In some ways (the saving lives sort of ways...) that would be a good thing. However other governments could sue the UK and force it to honour its international deals that require it to respect patents on medicines.

From Corbyn's point of view, the EU is one of those international deals that prevents socialism from becoming a real possibility.

bluescreen

Thus is true - I believe Deutsche Bahn get around it because private companies run some rail services in Germany (though DB run the majority) and, as you say, run some over here.

Tony Benn's five essential questions of democracy (the last being 'how do we get rid of you) got a lot of play on the Leave side in the runup to the Referendum but I don't think Corbyn's a Leaver due to the EU's democratic deficit. I think he just sees it as a bosses' club.

If/when the Uk leaves the EU, there will be a key role for women's organisations and voices.

They will need to scrutinise new legislation, ministerial directives and guidance on women's rights, protections and remedies very carefully. This is what Her Majesty's Official Opposition is supposed to do, but the opposition front bench is so talentless that it will be up to US to spot any messing about.

Women are disproportionately going to be dealing with the labour caused by a No Deal Brexit, I feel.

Added to which, I'm not sure how much more austerity women and children can absorb.

What I can't get my head round is why Jeremy Cornyn is pro brexit

The lunatic hard left see the EU as just a part of the capitalist system. Tony Benn was vehemently opposed.