An analysis of feminist writings on the internet and otherwise clearly indicates that according to them much of the Brexit hassle is basically due to the organizations run by white men in suits. This is based on the grounds that white men in suits run these institutions and had it been more inclusive, even in the system as binary as a remain or leave poll, outcome would have been something radically different. (Something that has not been elaborated upon!) To develop a better understanding the debate may be structured as having perhaps two essential contentions. The first contention is with respect to the lack of participation of women in the Brexit debate at large. Much of the feminist house is of the opinion that they have been not given the red carpet treatment they deserve and this has resulted in violation of their rights. Another essential aspect of this contention, as has been highlighted vividly by feminists is that multiple women leaders, including a female Labor MP, Jo Cox, have been harassed by men for their participation in the debate. They were harassed for tabling their views with respect to issue of immigration, austerity measures etc. As per media reports such harassments were made up of shouting popular counter slogans and logically sound assertions. (Feminists are of the view that this has seriously hampered the development of democracy!)
Second important contention is that Brexit will result in hampering interests of British women. This is reliant on the fact that EU has better protection laws for women in terms of equal pay, laws against discrimination on the basis of sex etc. However, equally strong argument exist on the opposition side. These include the arguments like the Suffragettes were not funded by the EU – It didn’t even exist when women got the vote under the Representation of the People Act 1918. It also had no part in subsequent amendments that led to women and men getting the suffrage on equal terms. The Divorce Reform Act 1969 widened the grounds for divorce to irretrievable breakdown, before the UK joined the EC. Another aspect of this debate includes the debate with respect to the economic implications. Feminists are of the opinion that Brexit will result in austerity measures that will disproportionately hurt women. Arguments within the feminist house against the stated included contribution to the research funds to encourage feminist objectives, access to the market and implications on pension funds if Brexit goes through.
Without commenting on the merits of the arguments, I’m personally of the opinion that this is another political debate, in simply another political ideology. Consequently arguments from both sides exist within the house and are perhaps logically consistent and sound. Further, outcome in this binary paradigm if stay or leave is also fairly determinable. Hence, we can safely conclude that while the defining parameters of debate have changed, outcome and structure essentially remains the same!