The Unintended Consequences of Brexit: The Case of Work-Life Balance

  • Eugenia Caracciolo di TorellaEmail author
Part of the Gender and Politics book series (GAP)


This chapter explores the potential implications of Brexit on work-life balance. It maintains that, although in this area the EU has not been above criticisms, it has been instrumental in shaping an agenda and creating a policy and normative framework that has enhanced the position of carers and counterbalanced the UK’s neoliberal approach. This chapter identifies three possible scenarios or approaches that the UK Government could use to address future legislation: a status quo, a progressive and a regressive scenario. It is likely that the regressive scenario will apply. Furthermore, there is so much more than ‘just legislation’ at stake. This chapter concludes that leaving the EU is likely to jeopardise any achievements in this area. The consequences of Brexit will not be felt only by the UK, however; they will also be felt by the EU.


  1. Adams, Lee. 2013. The Family Responsibilities Convention Reconsidered: The Work-Family Intersection in International Law Thirty Years On. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 22: 201.Google Scholar
  2. BBC News. 2014. Farage: Women Must Sacrifice Family Life to Succeed in City, January 20. Accessed 22 July 2018.
  3. Bell, Mark. 2018. The European Pillar on Social Rights and EU Employment Law. Lecture Delivered for the LLM/Diploma Employment Law, University of Leicester, March 3.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, Toni. 1999. Forward to Fairness at Work, Department of Trade and Industry, Cm 3969. The Stationery Office. Google Scholar
  5. Bowcott, Owen. 2016. We Don’t Decide National Cases: ECJ Veteran Wipes Away Eurosceptics Barbs. The Guardian, April 19. Accessed 2 May 2018.
  6. Brenner, Johanna. 2009. Democratizing Care. In Gender Equality, Transforming Family Divisions of Labor, ed. J. Gornick and M. Meyers. New York: Verso. Google Scholar
  7. Bridgeman, Jo. 2007. Accountability, Support or Relationship? Conceptions of Parental Responsibility. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 58: 307–324.Google Scholar
  8. Busby, Nicole. 2011. A Right to Care? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Busby, Nicole, and Grace James. 2011. Families, Care-Giving and Paid Work—Challenging Labour Law in the 21st Century. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  10. Caracciolo di Torella, Eugenia. 2007. New Labour, New Dads—The Impact of Family Friendly Legislation on Fathers. Industrial Law Journal 36 (3): 318–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caracciolo di Torella, Eugenia. 2014. Brave New Fathers for a Brave New World? Fathers as Caregivers in an Evolving European Union. European Law Journal 20 (1): 88–106.Google Scholar
  12. Caracciolo di Torella, Eugenia. 2016. Shaping and Re-shaping the Caring Relationship in European Law: A Catalogue of Rights for Informal Carers? Child and Family Law Quarterly 28 (3): 261–279.Google Scholar
  13. Caracciolo di Torella, Eugenia. 2017. An Emerging Right to Care in the EU: A “New Start” to Support Work-Life Balance for Parents and Carers. ERA Forum 18 (2): 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caracciolo di Torella, Eugenia, and Annick Masselot. 2010. Reconciliation of Work and Family Life in EU Law and Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Caracciolo di Torella, Eugenia, and Foubert Petra. 2015. Surrogacy, Pregnancy and Maternity Rights: A Missed Opportunity for a More Coherent Regime of Parental Rights in the EU? European Law Review 40 (1): 52–69.Google Scholar
  16. Choudhry, Shazia, and Herring Jonathan. 2010. European Human Rights and Family Law. Oxford Hart.Google Scholar
  17. Ciccia, Rossella, and Bleijenbergh Inge. 2014. After the Male Breadwinner Model? Childcare Services and the Division of Labor in European Countries. Social Politics 21 (1): 50–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clough, Beverly. 2014. What About Us? A Case for Legal Recognition of Interdependence in Informal Care Relationships. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 36 (2): 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Council of the EU. 2018. Leave and Flexible Work for Parents and Carers: Council Agrees General Approach on the Draft Directive on Work-Life Balance, PRESS RELEASE 372/18 21/06/2018.Google Scholar
  20. Craig, Paul. 2012. EU Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Crompton, Rosemary, and Clare Lyonette. 2006. Work-Life Balance in Europe. Acta Sociologica 49: 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Department for Exiting the European Union 2018. European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Explanatory Notes. Accessed 28 July 2018.
  23. Eurofund. 2015. Promoting Uptake of Parental and Paternity Leave Among Fathers in the European Union. Accessed 10 May 2018.
  24. European Commission. 2008. Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Opinion on New Forms of Leave (Paternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Filial Leave).Google Scholar
  25. European Council. 2000. Lisbon European Council: Presidency Conclusions. 23–24 March. Accessed 22 October 2015.
  26. Fagan, Colette, and Jill Rubery. 2017. Advancing Gender Equality Through European Employment Policy: The Impact of the UK’s EU Membership and the Risks of Brexit. Social Policy & Society 17 (2): 10–21.Google Scholar
  27. Fawcett Society. 2018. Sex Discrimination Law Review. Accessed 25 July 2018.
  28. Feder Kittay, Eva. 1999. Love’s Labour Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  29. Ferreira, Nuno. 2016. The Human Face of the European Union: Are EU Law and Policy Humane Enough? An Introduction. In The Human Face of the European Union: Are EU Law and Policy Humane Enough? ed. N. Ferreira and D. Kostakopoulou, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Ferreira, Nuno, and Dora Kostakopoulou (eds.). 2016. The Human Face of the European Union: Are EU Law and Policy Humane Enough? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  31. Fineman, Martha. 1995. The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family and Other Twentieth Century Tragedies. London and New York: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Foubert, Petra, and Šejla Imamović. 2015. The Pregnant Workers Directive: Must Do Better. Lessons to Be Learned from Strasbourg? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 37 (3): 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  34. Golynker, Oxana. 2015. Family Friendly Reform of Employment Law in the UK: An Overstretched Flexibility. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 37 (3): 378–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gordon, Sarah. 2017. Few Families Opt for Shared Parental Leave. Financial Times, 18 September. Accessed 25 July 2018.
  36. Griffiths, Andrew. 2018. Letter to Sir William Cash, January 17.Google Scholar
  37. Guerrina, Roberta. 2015. Socio-Economic Challenges to Work-Life Balance at Times of Crisis. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 37 (3): 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guerrina, Roberta. 2017. Gendering European Economic Narratives: Assessing the Costs of the Crisis to Gender Equality. In Gender and the Economic Crisis in Europe, ed. J. Kantola and E. Lombardo, 95–115. Cham: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guerrina, Roberta, and Annick Masselot. 2018. Walking in the Footprint of EU Law: Unpacking the Gendered Consequences of Brexit. Social Policy & Society 17 (2): 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guerrina, Roberta, and Hailey Murphy. 2016. Strategic Silences in the Brexit Debate: Gender, Marginality and Governance. Journal of Contemporary European Research 12 (4): 872–880.Google Scholar
  41. Hantrais, Linda. 2018. Assessing the Past and Future Development of EU and UK Social Policy. Social Policy & Society 17 (2): 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Held, Virginia. 2006. The Ethic of Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  43. Hendrickx, Frank. 2016. The UK After the Brexit: Handle with Care (Editorial). European Labour Law Journal 7 (2): 166–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Herring, Jonathan. 2007. Caring. Law and Justice Christian Law Review 159: 89–102.Google Scholar
  45. Herring, Jonathan. 2013. Caring and the Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Google Scholar
  46. Hervey, Tamara. 1994. Social Policy: A Happy Ending or a Reworking of the Fairy Tale? In Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty, ed. O’Keeffe and P. Twomey. London: Wiley Chancery. Google Scholar
  47. Horton, Rachel. 2018. Employment/Labour Law. In Great Debates on Gender and Law, ed. R. Auchmuty. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
  48. James, Grace. 2007. Enjoy Your Leave, but “Keep in Touch”: Help to Maintain Parent/Workplace Relationships. Industrial Law Journal 36 (3): 313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. James, Grace. 2009a. The Legal Regulation of Pregnancy and Parenting in the Labour Market. London and New York: Routledge-Cavendish. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. James, Grace. 2009b. Mothers and Fathers as Parents and Workers: Family-Friendly Employment Policies in an Era of Shifting Identities. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 31 (3): 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. James, Grace. 2016. Family-Friendly Employment Laws (Re)assessed: The Potential of Care Ethics. Industrial Law Journal 45 (4): 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jenkin, I., 2017. Is Brexit Bad for Women? The Financial Times, July 7. Accessed 25 July 2018.
  53. Junker, J.C., 2017. Proclamation of the European Pillar of Social Rights. Accessed 2 May 2018.
  54. Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1981. Essays in Moral Development Volume 1: The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row. Google Scholar
  55. Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1984. Essays in Moral Development Volume 2: The Psychology of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row. Google Scholar
  56. Lewis, Jane, and Mary Campbell. 2007. UK Work/Family Balance Policies and Gender Equality, 1997–2005. Social Politics 14 (4): 4–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mance, Henry. 2017. Theresa May Vows to Expand Workers’ Rights. Financial Times, May 15. Accessed 25 July 2018.
  58. Mason, Rowena. 2015. Nigel Farage: It’s a ‘Fact of Life’ That Mothers Will Earn Less in Some Jobs. The Guardian, 5 March. Accessed 14 May 2018.
  59. McColgan, Aileen. 2000. Family-Friendly Frolics? The Maternity and Parental Leave Etc. Regulations 1999. Industrial Law Journal 29 (2): 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McCrudden, Christopher. 2018. EU Equality Law in the Age of Brexit. European Equality Law Review 1: 30–38.Google Scholar
  61. McGlynn, Clare. 2001. Reclaiming a Feminist Vision: The Reconciliation of Paid Work and Family Life in European Union Law and Policy. Columbia Journal of European Law 7 (2): 241–272.Google Scholar
  62. Meyers, Christopher. 2004. Cruel Choices: Autonomy and Critical Care Decision-Making. Bioethics 18 (2): 104–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mitchell, Gemma. 2015. Encouraging Fathers to Care: The Children and Families Act 2014 and Shared Parental Leave. Industrial Law Journal 44 (1): 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moon, Gay, and Robin Allen. 2006. Dignity Discourse in Discrimination Law: A Better Route to Equality? European Human Rights Law Review 6: 695.Google Scholar
  65. Mosher, James, and David Trubek. 2003. Alternative Approaches to Governance in the EU: EU Social Policy and the European Employment Strategy. Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (1): 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Munro, Vanessa. 2007. Law and Politics and the Perimeter: Re-evaluating Key Debates in Feminist Theory. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Google Scholar
  67. Plomien, Ania. 2018. EU Social and Gender Policy Beyond Brexit: Towards the European Pillar of Social Rights Social. Policy & Society 17 (1): 281–296.Google Scholar
  68. Radulova, Elissaveta. 2009. The Construction of EU’s Childcare Policy Through the Open Method of Coordination. European Integration Online Papers 13 (1), Art. 13. Accessed 25 July 2018.
  69. Raitio, Juha, and Helena Raulus. 2017. The UK EU Referendum and the Move Towards Brexit. The Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 24 (1): 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rhode, Deborah. 1991. Justice and Gender. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  71. Ruddick, Sara. 1980. Maternal Thinking. Feminist Studies 6 (2): 342–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sevenhuijsen, Selma. 2003. The Place of Care: The Relevance of the Feminist Ethic of Care for Social Policy. Feminist Theory 4: 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shutes, Isabelle. 2018. When Unpaid Childcare Isn’t ‘Work’: EU Residency Rights Have Gendered Consequences. Accessed 11 May 2018.
  74. Shutes, Isabelle, and Sara Walker. 2018. Gender and Free Movement: EU Migrant Women’s Access to Residence and Social Rights in the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44 (1): 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Suk, Julie. 2017. Equality After Brexit: Evaluating British Contributions to EU Anti Discrimination Law. Fordham International Law Journal 40: 1536–1552.Google Scholar
  76. Tridimas, Takis. 2006. The General Principles of EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  77. Tronto, Joan. 1993. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. TUC. 2018/2016. Women Workers’ Rights and the Risks of Brexit. Accessed 10 May 2018.
  79. UK Parliament. 2017. Parental and Carers’ Leave Directive. Accessed 25 November 2018.
  80. Ungerson, Clare. 2000. Cash in Care. In Care Work: Gender, Class and the Welfare State, ed. M. Herrington Meyer, 69–88. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  81. Weldon-Johns, Michelle. 2011. The Additional Paternity Leave Regulations 2010: A New Dawn or More “Sound-Bite” Legislation? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 33 (1): 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wyatt, D. 1982. New Legal Order or Old. European Law Review 7 (3): 147–166.Google Scholar
  83. Zeitlin, Jonathan. 2007. Strengthening the Social Dimension of the Lisbon Strategy. The Belgian Review of Social Security 2: 459–473.Google Scholar
  84. Zeitlin, Jonathan, Philippe Pochet, with Lars Magnusson. 2005. The Open Method of Coordination in Action: The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies. Brussels: P.I.E. – Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leicester Law SchoolUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations