Brexit- is it a feminist issue?

[traceyracer]

In the interest of women's rights, would it be better to stay in or out of the EU or would it matter either way?

thoughts?

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.

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.

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):

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 ....

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.

Isn’t Rosa on here?

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

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.