INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines the scenarios facing the UK workforce given the “Brexit” referendum vote on 23 June 2016 which resulted in a vote to leave the EU. Focusing on freedom of movement and the European Working Time Directive, the chapter considers the regulation of the employment relationship and what the impact of Brexit on this could be. We argue that the overall effect on the UK workforce will largely be dictated by what type of trading relationship the UK is able to obtain with the EU and the rest of the world. If the UK wishes to retain access to the single market then it will probably have to accept continued freedom of movement and abiding by the EU social chapter of workers’ rights. However, if it wishes to restrict freedom of movement, as public statements to date by the UK government have indicated, then a more limited relationship with the EU would most likely ensue, but potentially allow the UK government more room to make changes to regulating the employment relationship. Attempts to restrict freedom of movement could also have wider implications for sectors of the UK economy reliant on EU migrant workers or those that export into the EU.

THE EU AND THE REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT

During the referendum campaign, one of the key themes articulated by Remain campaigners was that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to drastically alter (i.e. reduce) the scope of protective employment regulations in the UK workplace. In response to this, the Leave campaign argued that freedom of movement and consequent migration of workers from Central and Eastern European member states was depriving British workers of jobs (and access to school places, doctors’ appointments and social services) and was lowering wages in the economy. A vote for Leave was a vote to “take back control” of the UK border and reduce immigration. That the vote for Leave was significant in the traditional Labour-voting areas of the old industrial Midlands, north of England and Welsh valleys suggests that arguments around migration and low-paid workers had more traction with voters than any nascent concerns over employment rights.