Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Politics
  2. Brexit
8 June 2018updated 19 Jun 2018 10:04am

We can’t let women’s rights and welfare become collateral damage after Brexit

Can the UK government be trusted to protect and respect women’s human rights after we leave the EU? 

By Sian Norris

With parliament debating the House of Lords’ amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill this Tuesday, Brexit is never far from the headlines.

But in all the subsequent debates, where are women being mentioned?

Since June 2016, there has been no parliamentary debate on the effect leaving the EU will have on women, and no Gender Equality Impact Assessment. Yet from workplace legislation to healthcare and economic equality, Brexit will have huge repercussions on women’s lives.

The past 40 years of improvements to women’s legal rights have been underpinned by EU law. The government’s EU Withdrawal Bill plans to convert current EU legislation into UK law. However, in its current form, the bill also grants ministers wide-ranging powers to amend or repeal legislation. With the proposed introduction of sweeping “Henry VIII” powers, women’s rights could be under threat.

So can the UK government be trusted to protect and respect women’s human rights and promote further equality once we Brexit?

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. A weekly newsletter helping you fit together the pieces of the global economic slowdown. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

Its current track record suggests not. The three Tory-led governments since 2010 have repeatedly treated equality and social justice as being “nice to have” in moments of prosperity, but disposable in times of economic turbulence. With every Brexit scenario leading to reduced growth and greater uncertainty, this trend is at risk of continuing.

Content from our partners
How to create a responsible form of “buy now, pay later”
“Unions are helping improve conditions for drivers like me”
Transport is the core of levelling up

Take one of the most important women workers’ rights underpinned by EU Legislation: the Pregnant Workers’ Directive. Introduced in 1992, it protects the rights of pregnant women in the workplace. In 2011, MEPs proposed adding in 20 weeks of maternity leave at full pay. Leading Brexiteer Chris Grayling responded by calling the move “costly” and “socially regressive”. Grayling stated that “when member states are trying to balance their books in difficult times this is the wrong approach to adopt.” Similarly, his colleague Martin Callanan has called the directive a “barrier to employment” that could be “scrapped”.

Then there’s the EU Directive on Victims’ Rights, which guarantees women access to specialist support services. Already, the government has ignored the need to guarantee women’s services, with funding cuts causing the closure of a fifth of women’s refuges since 2010.

Activists have long used the EU Directive as grounds to oppose these austerity-driven cuts. Yet Brexit is likely to bring more economic pressure, while depriving activists of EU standards to lobby the government with.

However, the problem goes beyond simply ignoring what are thought of as women’s issues during the Brexit process. There has also been a failure to address the economic impact of Brexit on women.

Trade, manufacturing and security dominate Brexit conversations. In a recent talk on the gendered impact of Brexit, Professor Roberta Guerinna and Dr Toni Haastrup argue that these are typically viewed as “male concerns”.

Most manufacturing jobs are male-dominated (in automation, for example, 84 per cent of workers are men). However, significant sections of manufacturing are dominated by women workers, such as textiles. Women make up 55 per cent of the employees in this industry, which is predicted to face a squeeze post-2019. This is rarely discussed.

Similarly, health and social care is expected to have increased costs once we leave the EU, as well as experience a sharp decrease in staffing levels. Women make up 77 per cent of workers in this sector, and 62,000 of those women are from the EEA, leaving them with an uncertain future post Brexit. One could argue that the decrease in staff could lead to more economic opportunities for women from the UK in this female-centric industry. However, the Women’s Budget group suggest that “while this may lead to increased employment opportunities for UK women these may be short-lived if the projected negative impact of Brexit on the economy leads to reduced spending on public services.”

Further, the Women’s Budget Group suggests that “gendered employment effects of new trading arrangements are likely, in which women gain less than men do”. The impact on women workers’ economic equality needs to be discussed far more than it has been so far.

Then there’s security — which is rarely mentioned in the same sentence as gender. Yet most terrorists are revealed to have a history of domestic abuse. Some attacks, such as the horrific Manchester bombing, have been directly targeted at women and girls.

According to research conducted by RAND, a “zero-sum” Brexit and “messy divorce” risks the UK and the EU becoming “weaker and less secure”. Theresa May herself said “a failure to reach agreement would mean our co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.” It’s vital we include women’s perspectives on security, particularly in light of terrorism’s relationship with gender-based violence. 

Of course, two women’s voices are being heard loud and clear in Brexit – Theresa May and Arlene Foster. But it’s not enough to have women in charge when concerns affecting women who don’t occupy positions at the apex of power remain unaddressed. We need to centre women’s experiences in the Brexit process, and ensure the impact on women is considered when we talk about its implications for trade, finance and security.

Brexit is touted as an opportunity to shape the kind of country the UK could become. But social justice has repeatedly been treated as something only for times of prosperity, and dumped in moments of crisis. Unless we bring more women’s voices to the Brexit debate, then we risk accepting that women’s equality is merely collateral damage from Brexit.