Monday 2 July 2018

GINA MILLER’S NASTY ELITISM SUMS UP THE REMOANER LOBBY

How dare you plebs question us experts? This is the cry of Remainers.

BRENDAN O’NEILL
EDITOR
2 JULY 2018

Gina Miller’s nasty elitism sums up the Remoaner lobby
It’s not often I say this, but we should be grateful to Gina Miller. Ms Miller is the wealthy businesswoman who says the Brexit vote made her physically sick and who is so barren in the category of self-awareness that she once gave an interview to a fawning New Statesman hack in which she gabbed about the problems facing 21st-century Britain while ‘spread across a velvet sofa’ in a ‘high-ceilinged drawing room’ while her ‘multimillionaire husband’ acted as her bodyguard. So Caligulan! These are the people the left now loves. Anyway, we should nonetheless be grateful to Ms Miller because her latest outburst has really shone a light on what is driving elitist Brexitphobia.
On Friday, Ms Miller and a host of other female members of the great and good – lawyers, professors, peers, the daughters of filthy-rich capitalists, etc – wrote a letter to the Guardian – where else? – in which they opined that women’s rights would collapse post-Brexit. Because before the EU came into existence in 1992 – the year of Wet Wet Wet, John Major and Damien Hirst’s shark, in case you’re one of those people labouring under the illusion that the EU has existed forever – British women basically had no rights, right? It is only thanks to the grey, stale, quite male oligarchy in Brussels that British women were able to shake off the shackles of oppression. What an insult to the generations of British Suffragettes and libbers who spent decades struggling for freedom before the EU was even a glint in the eye of scheming bureaucrats.
Not surprisingly, Miller and Co’s ridiculous letter – long on initials after the signatories’ names, short on facts – caused annoyance. Not least among some of the millions of women who voted for Brexit. Ms Miller, incredulous that such inhabitants of the plebeian sections of society would presume to question her and her friends, all of whom are well-educated and read broadsheet newspapers, fired back at these little people on Twitter. ‘People responding negatively to our letter [regarding] loss of women’s rights post-Brexit know more than the top women signatories?’, she asked. Then she listed some of these ‘top women’. ‘Jessica Simor QC, Caroline Criado-Perez feminist activist, Cherie Blair QC, Helena Kennedy QC, Shona Jolly QC, Susie Courtault rights campaigner…’
We get it, you know a lot of QCs! And QCs count for more than you and me. This is what Miller is saying. She knows this is what she is saying, we know it is what she is saying, so can we cut to the chase here? Ms Miller is really asking, in the tone of a 17th-century monarch, or 19th-century boss, ‘Do you think you know more than me?’. And we should be glad she is, because this Twitter freakout, this rage of a businesswomen who puked over our vote, this listing of people who are better and cleverer than the rest of us, captures the essence of elitist Remoanerism – which is the belief that some people’s political views are worth more than other people’s, and therefore should carry more weight. Autocracy, as some of us might call it. Whatever it is, it isn’t democracy, which is a system in which everyone’s views, regardless of our racial, gender or educational background, are meant to impact equally on the fate of the nation.
Miller’s unguarded snobbery, her probably accidental exposure of her belief that lesser citizens should stop criticising people with letters after their names, confirms what lies behind Remoaners’ deification of expertise. It is a belief, as old as politics itself, that the well-educated and well brought-up are better placed to make political judgements than the rest of us. Right from Plato’s ‘Philosopher Kings’ to the complaint that was made about women demanding the vote in the late 19th century – as one misogynist politician put it, women ‘lack the expertise… which is necessary for informed political activity’ – there has always been this idea that some people, us, are better at thinking and deciding and doing politics than other people: them. You know them: the kind of folks who vote for Brexit or who outrageously clog up Ms Miller’s Twitterfeed with – brace yourselves – negative comments.
This is the tyranny of expertise. This is the thing Michael Gove was dead right about – and you could tell he was dead right because his comments sent the chattering classes into a political tailspin – when he said people have ‘had enough of experts’. This public bristling against the elevation of expertise in political and social matters isn’t philistinism, as the elitists claim it is, and nor is it a folk-wisdom that prefers the diagnosis of a witch doctor over the insights of Western science. Rather, it is part of a great and democratic growing discomfort with the way in which the beatification of experts grates against the ideal of ‘one person, one vote’ by suggesting, or outright arguing, that some people and some groups should have more say than us.
The populist revolt against experts is a wonderful and positive moment in British politics. This is people saying, ‘Our views count as much as yours. When it comes to politics, our say is absolutely equal to your say, even if we might be poorer than you and have fewer PhDs’. This is in keeping with virtually every stab for the expansion of democracy in history, all of which have relied upon a scepticism about elevated expertise and a conviction that ordinary working people have just as much to contribute to political debate as lords and ladies and business owners do.
In fact, I’d go further: in answer to the question Miller is really asking – which is, ‘Do you lot think you know better than us?’ – we should say ‘Yes’. Yes, by dint of the fact that ordinary people really live in society in a way that bureaucrats and business people often don’t, and therefore are very often more sensitive and alert and thoughtful about the difficulties facing that society, they know more than you. They are better than you at making long-term political decisions that will benefit everyone. They are more politically trustworthy than those who have vested interests, narrow experiences, and a sometimes jaundiced view of society and its inhabitants. But don’t worry, we are democrats, which means we won’t let the fact that ordinary people are better placed than the elites to make sensible political decisions get in the way of your rights. So you’ll still have a vote. That’s all, though. One vote. Like the rest of us.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. Find him on Instagram: @burntoakboy
Picture by: Getty
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gina-millers-nasty-elitism-sums-up-the-remoaner-lobby



Gina Miller's letter to the Guardian:

Women’s rights at risk after Brexit




Female parliamentarians, businesswomen, campaigners and others sign a letter to the Guardian highlighting the real risk of losing hard-won rights after Britain leaves the EU

Theresa May arrives at this week’s European Council summit in Brussels.



 Theresa May arrives at this week’s European Council summit in Brussels. Photograph: Nicolas Lambert/EPA

This week’s European summit marks a critical moment in the Brexit negotiations. Much attention has been focussed on arguments about trade and the economy but not enough on the impact leaving the EU will have on our rights. The UK is unique in Europe in not having a written constitution. Post-Brexit, we will be the only country in Europe where politicians will be free to remove and diminish hard-won rights, especially for women and minority groups.

Many employment and social protection rights are derived from the EU treaties and directives, as interpreted by the case-law of the European court of justice. For example, equal pay for work of equal value, parental leave, anti-harassment laws, properly paid holiday rights, working time and important features of our anti-discrimination provisions, including on pregnancy and maternity, have been introduced or substantially developed by the EU.

The importance of equality and social protections is being lost in the wrangles over customs and trade. Theresa May has already promised to leave the EU charter of fundamental rights with no British replacement lined up to ensure we don’t lose almost 50 years of protection.
Let’s not forget that marriage bars existed in some workplaces until the 1940s. Some of our grandmothers had to resign from their teaching jobs when they tied the knot. More recently, a woman could be dismissed for pregnancy. It was argued that this was not discrimination on the basis of sex, because a man could be dismissed for long-term illness. Now, it is illegal to choose a woman who is not pregnant over a pregnant woman when the pregnant woman is better qualified. Any disfavouring of a person because of pregnancy is direct sex discrimination.
These are huge developments – and they are grounded in EU treaty rights. No state can remove or diminish them. Poland will try. Hungary will try. But as long as they are members of the EU, they will fail.
Once the EU treaties and the charter of fundamental rights, with which all EU law and EU-derived law must comply, are removed from UK law, there will be nothing to stop politicians from diminishing rights that have taken many years to win, in a race to the bottom when it comes to employment practices. Indeed, some may be motivated by the power Brexit will give them to do this.
Even if the rights and protections we currently have are automatically absorbed into UK law by the withdrawal bill (and that is not the case because the government has removed the application of the charter of fundamental rights), parliament can in the future remove and diminish these protections.
The real risk to people from all walks of life of losing hard-won rights needs to be understood. This is why we believe people must be given the chance to vote on the final deal.
Nina de Ayala Parker Women’s rights activist
Tulip Siddiq MP Labour, Kilburn and Hampstead
Jessica Simor QC Specialist in public/regulatory, EU and human rights law
Fiona Millar Journalist and campaigner on education and parenting issues
Nicola Horlick Investment fund manager
Livia Firth Executive producer of 2015 documentary The True Cost, and Founder Green Carpet Challenge
Gina Miller Business woman, transparency campaigner
Ruth Chapman Co-founder and co-chief executive of Matches Fashion
Bonnie Greer Playwright, novelist, critic and broadcaster
Layla Moran MP Liberal Democrats, Oxford West and Abingdon
Caroline Criado Perez Feminist activist, journalist
Eloise Todd CEO, Best for Britain
Cherie Blair QC
Zoe Williams Journalist
Amanda Levete Architect and businesswoman
Farshid Moussavi Architect and businesswoman
Alice Rawsthorn Design critic and author
Tessa Milligan Campaigner and actress
Clare Moody MEP Labour
Rupa Huq MP Labour, Ealing Central and Acton
Rushanara Ali MP Labour, Bethnal Green and Bow, Senior fellow of the Young FoundationCaroline Lucas MP Brighton Pavilion and Green party LeaderAlison McGovern MP Labour, Wirral SouthRos Altmann Pensions expert and political campaignerHelena Kennedy QC Labour, House of LordsPatience Weatcroft Conservative, House of LordsScarlett Curtis Activist, Co-founder Pink ProtestNaomi SmithSchona Jolly QC Specialist in human rights and equalities lawSiobhan Benita 2012 London mayoral candidateTanja Bueltmann Professor of history, Northumbria UniversityGrace Campbell Activist, producer, Co-founder of the Pink ProtestAmelia Dimoldenbergh Journalist and comedianAlice Skinner Illustrator and visual artistElena Remigi Founder of the Limbo ProjectSusie Courtault Women’s rights campaignerMadeleina Kay Illustrator and political activistJessica Gottgens Political activistWomen Against Brexit

  • This letter was amended on 29 June 2018 to correct the spelling of Rushanara Ali’s name, and because Ali is a senior fellow of the Young Foundation, not associate director as an earlier version said.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/28/womens-rights-at-risk-after-brexit


ALSO:

Gina Miller vs The People – again