Westministenders: One for the Women

[RedToothBrush]

Just remember that women are more likely to be worried about Brexit.

Their women's and workers rights are more at risk from departure from the EU, the ECJ and potentially the EHCR.
They are more likely to be worried as EU citizens in the UK due to taking time to have and raise families.
They are more likely to have been badly affected by austerity and an economic downturn will hit them first.
If they are leavers they are more likely to have changed their minds.
They are less likely to be MPs so have less representation.
They are more likely to be feeling politically unrepresented by any party and unsure of who they will vote for at the next election.
They are more likely to get abuse for expressing a political opinion. Many report having been subjected to sexual harassment from political colleagues.
They are more likely to be the target of abuse on social media.
They are earn less than their political colleagues, they earn less than their media colleagues, they earn less than their business colleagues. They are less likely to be in powerful lobby groups.

Then there's #metoo

And to cap it off women's groups are finding it hard to get their voice heard, and are frequently being labelled as hysterical or bigoted for merely wanting to discuss things and be reassured that their fears are acknowledged. They are frequently dismissed as liars or over sensitive.

This is 2018.

It doesn't feel progressive. It doesn't look equal.

Brexit has more of an impact on women.

For goodness sake! Trump is a blooming idiot! What the fell is this country going to do now

Hell blooming typos[

Tariffs would destroy the remains of the British steel industry
which suffered great damage earlier when the UK vetoed the EU's proposed sanctions of China dumping its steel at artificially low prices.

WTO mean tariffs must be applied to all countries, except in cases of war (maybe Trump,plans to declare war on everyone ?)

sos I'm not entirely sure where you're going with your argument, if I tell the truth.

As lonelyplanetmum has said, individual nation states have a lot of autonomy with regard to employment legislation, and it seems to me you are angry with the EU about what is an issue with the UK government. That's misdirected ire.

It's an odd one. So much of the Leave rhetoric was about the EU having too much power within individual nation states' legislation but then, when you drilled down, people's small grievances were about things that the UK had autonomy over - in fact, things where the UK chose to go its own way, with quite some variance from the direction of travel of the rest of the EU states. Indeed, often you'd find that people were pissed off about something the UK had lobbied long and hard to acquire autonomy over. Legislation moderating the abuse of zero hours contracts is one such example, I think.

So, thinking about what you're saying a bit more, I think what you are really saying is that you feel that the EU is a well-off person's project. That being in the EU bestowed more benefits on the well-off than the less well-off. That a vote for Leave was, in fact, a vote to take away something that benefitted the well-off, who didn't understand what it was like to live below the level where EU membership conferred benefits.

Personally, I think this was one of the most pernicious and horrible lies that the Leave campaign pursued. It makes me think of the Leave lies as a load of filth that was dumped on the UK and we're still having to try and cleanse public life of them now, months later.

Leaving the EU is going to reduce the amount of income in the UK for everyone. The income that keeps the NHS going, the income that keeps rubbish being collected, street-lights on, buses running, books in schools, teachers in classes.

Can you see how that is going to affect you (you are a user of the NHS, aren't you? One of your daughters is still at school, isn't she?)?

Leaving the EU is going to suffocate the welfare systems and drive down working conditions for everyone. The impact will be greatest for those who are struggling now (you; your daughter who is a care-worker).

Leaving the EU is going to be a bonanza for unscrupulous employers and asset-strippers. It's going to create a very biddable pool of cheap labour for those who are at the upper end of the income scale.

Getting people to vote for this scenario - which is actually going to be a nightmare for people like you and your daughter - by telling them that it was a vote to 'make the rich feel what it's like to be at the bottom of the pile', or some kind of income-redistribution, was - I think - nothing short of evil.

I really mean that. It encouraged people to vote away rights and well-being. It encouraged people to vote for their own exploitation. It encouraged people to vote away the structures of support we have (NHS, education, social services). A swathe of people who, literally, have voted to be super-exploited and for their children to be super-exploited.

It's tragic.

But was clearly effective in a way I never imagined possible.

As I said on elsewhere, anyone who thinks: "Things can't get any worse," is clearly not paying enough attention to what life is like in other parts of the world, where there is no welfare state. Brexit is going to decimate the welfare state. If you use free, state education, if you rely on not having to pay for health treatment, things can and will get a lot worse.

Things won't get a lot worse for people who don't - and never would - rely on those things. In fact, things will get a lot better for those people.

This is why I think this was a genuinely evil plank of the Leave campaign. Getting people who were already struggling to completely misidentify their interests as somehow being identical with the people who have no interest whatsoever in maintaining a fucntioning welfare state, or employment rights - indeed, who will benefit from their destruction - was truly appalling.

I still don't really understand how people could fall for it.

It's voting to starve yourself and your children.

Trump and the US are showing us again that many Brits want trade benefits, but no responsibilities :

They want the EU to defend British companies like Bombardier against 220% US tariffs, intended solely to destroy a rival to a US giant
but then whinge if the UK is expected to join in any sanctions against Trump's steel sanctions, which are only to benefit US steel firms against competition

(however, US steel users - i.e. manufacturers of goods - are protesting that higher steel prices will cost many US jobs)

Agnes I insist on his full title:

*Disgraced former Defence Secretary and Werrity-Sniffer Liam Fox"

I don't understand how anyone can still be buying the line about 'special deal' with the US.

Businesses know it's utter nonsense - they've been telling government officials for a while now that any individual overtures have been rebuffed "unless it makes the US money". The government knows it: there is no way that there hasn't been enormous effort behind the scenes to try and get some sort of deal - and it hasn't happened.

And the media knows it. What is baffling is why it's still being peddled as a possibility. I honestly think it's some weird kind of mass hallucination, rather than a straight-forward act of collusion.

I guess the tariffs are making the fantasy harder to maintain ...

Mother, I don't disagree, with either you or the DUP. My point is just that, for me, this is the most unsquareable of Brexit circles. May has to keep the DUP on side because she desperately recruited them to keep herself in power. So where can she turn and what can she do? I can't think of an answer.

That is about Scotland too - and possibly the areas of England where some sense prevailed.

And Wales too – Plaid Cymru's call for UK nationals to retain EU citizenship after Brexit.

And the media knows it. What is baffling is why it's still being peddled as a possibility.I honestly think it's some weird kind of mass hallucination...

I agree. The power of language is a weird thing.

Call a relationship ' special' and it's seen that way even if there is no longer any evidence to support it.

Call a proposal ' Brexit' and it's seem as a tangible positive thing. Even if there's no fucking plan and the only possibilities are economic catastrophe.

If the EU were to really help the poor in the UK, then they would have to take over far more powers from Westminister
e.g. they could raise income tax to the levels of Germany or Sweden and increase workers rights to those levels

That might indeed come if ever the EU countries decide on a United States of Europe

but the EU public - and definitely UK Leavers - don't want that
The UK govt has always had the power to raise taxes to pay for services like the NHS and care, but has chosen not to.

The ERG and others on the Tory hard right claim the EU is too socialist, with too many laws holding back business and the very wealthy.
They want to leave to avoid the EU tax haven legislation that would otherwise come into effect in 2019

They want a hard Brexit that will enable a "Bonfire of Red Tape"

The "red tape" they want to cut includes:

• Workers rights wrt unfair dismissal, maternity leave, statutory paid holidays, limits on mandatory required hours, health & safety at work, rights to join a union

• Environment protection

• Safety regs, e.g. for fires, buildings

and of course, they want even more tax cuts for the super-wealthy, which means further cuts for the less well-off

Respecting the 92% GFA referendum result in RoI

We must remember that people in the RoI referendum voted to change their constitution, as part of the GFA.
So of course they won't just let the UK tear up the GFA, but keep all the concessions from the RoI

Also
The GFA is a legally binding international treaty
The EU referendum bill was not written as legally binding, just advisory, like a manifesto. So no status in law.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-talks-irish-border-tusk-varadkar-northern-ireland-uk-solution-dup-a8246216.html

Speaking in Dublin alongside the Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, European Council President Donald Tusk said
talks would be a case of “Ireland first” and that “the risk of destabilising the fragile peace process must be avoided at all costs”.
…
Tusk recalled that the Good Friday Agreement, whose 20th anniversary is next month,
had been “ratified by huge majorities north and south of the border” [92% in RoI]

“We must recognise the democratic decision taken by Britain to leave the EU in 2016
– just as we must recognise the democratic decision made on the island of Ireland in 1998 with all its consequences”

Yes sorry I forgot Wales, but they genuinely shot themselves in their own foot, didn't they?

After their whinge fest over the Westminster power grap (passim), quite a few commentators elsewhere were reminding them that this is what they voted for. They really didn't like that (especially as it's true). But it was interesting that they felt Remainers had an "obligation" to help them oppose it. (Like what do they think Remainers have been doing since June 23rd ??????).

It is absolutely unacceptable to me that a part of the UK is treated differently to any other part.

In the scenario I was taking about, it won't be part of the UK much longer.

But NI is already treated differently, and will continue to be so under any Brexit scenario. Notably with regard to citizenship, because of the right to Irish (EU) citizenship.

thecatfromjapan when I said ' where are the EU workers rights...' I already thought it was down to the government and not the EU. I was hoping that someone could say my dd would be included in EU policy but its OK.
Yes a lot of points you made are good, but the NHS is already being privatised by the back door, its what the Tories want. In fact, they are jostling now for the contracts. People are not as stupid as you think. Far from trying to save the NHS this government and Cameron's before are hell bent on destroying it. Nothing will convince me otherwise. They have purposely run it down and brexit will finish it off a bit quicker than everyone expected.
I don't have a school age dd. I have 2 dds all grown up but I do have a very talented dgd whose chance of getting to Oxbridge will be very challenging brexit or not.
I'm well aware of the effect brexit will have on people like my family. Hence the vegetable patch is going to increase in size so at least I can help my family eat!
We are all in for hard times, but as always it will be a ' relative' hard time.
But according to a poster yesterday ( can't recall name) they want the leavers to be poorer etc etc I don't wish that on anyone, I know what poor really means. And, I'm not the poorest!
People voted for what they believed at the time. Yes, it must be nice for some to gloat at the fact that they are having their eyes opened to what they really voted for. I don't gloat or more importantly blame them. There was much more fundamental reasons varying from individual to individual as to why they voted the way they did, too numerous to mention.
I am not shrugging my shoulders and not doing anything about it but what is, is what is. We have to move on from the blame game, I understand the extreme anger, I too, am not happy and angry. The only real thing I can do over the coming years is think of worst scenarios coming like empty shelves, only getting fruit and veg in season, less money, unemployment etc and then prioritising my families REAL needs. Not wants, and finding some sort of solution for us to survive the next decade.
You never know we might not actually leave! It could be turned around but for me and people like me the last part of post will have to be applied till this government is gone.

But NI is already treated differently, and will continue to be so under any Brexit scenario. Notably with regard to citizenship,

And womens rights

Yes sorry I forgot Wales, but they genuinely shot themselves in their own foot, didn't they?

Yes, although you could arguably say that about England too. I'd liken the Wales result to the England one – metropolitan areas trying their damndest to get a Remain result, the rest turkeys voting for Christmas.

more arguing as a country about something we can do nothing about anyway, unless we all go our four separate ways. Which might not be such a bad thing now, sadly.
Is there a point at which the Queen should/can/must step in? It is her Union, after all. To propose splitting it up would surely be an almost unprecedented constitutional crisis.

The Queen has no power or does she? Sure someone will pur me right

Put

The Irish government are probably also trying to cover their backs. Not saying they don't care about the GFA, but I expect it would be good for them to be able to show they have done everything in their power to prevent the breakdown of the GFA. In case it all goes tits up and the UN start looking into who broke an international treaty.

Regional split similar to UK / English Civil War

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/09/brexit-has-the-semblance-of-a-new-english-civil-war/

The political map of Brexit vote resembles the regional distribution of support for the King, Court and Tories against Parliament, Merchants and liberal Whigs.

The geography of narrow conservatism and open-minded liberalism does not seem to have changed for centuries. The English Civil War reflected the tensions of early modern globalisation.

During the first half of the 17th century, new technologies had created new opportunities for business,
but the cost of managing the state had also increased rapidly.

The traditional nobility saw a decline in its influence and a rise in the wealth of the gentry and merchants – the result of a tremendous expansion of markets.

Sos, I think this is a perennially vexed question!
A quick Google throws up:

'In times of Crisis, as with a hung Parliament, the lack of an automatic choice of Prime Minister or an unjustifiable and unnecessary request for a dissolution of Parliament, the Monarchy provides an impartial and non-political arbitrator… It would also be able to intervene if the government acted un-constitutionally by, say putting the opposition in jail, abolishing elections, or instructing the police not to prosecute members of the government for criminal offences.'

Which suggests, I think, that she could. Splitting the Union would certainly be a case of the government acting unconstitutionally.