Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:26:44.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Implications of the Departure of the UK for EU Social Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2018

Mary Daly
Mary Daly*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers the significance of the UK departure for EU social policy from the perspective of the economic orientation of policy, institutional configuration and associated political agency. The analysis first focuses on the role the UK has played since it joined in 1973, highlighting the UK's strong support for the EU as a market project with a secondary role for social policy. It can as a consequence claim some success in imprinting its (neo)liberal orientation on EU policy while at the same time securing favourable terms for its own selective engagement with EU policy. The signals regarding EU social policy's future after the UK departs are very mixed. While there are some signs of a more social impulse in policy, the strong ties to a market approach, lack of consensus around the need for a different type of EU social policy engagement and institutional and political hierarchies constrain change.

Keywords

BrexitEU social policysocial Europequalified majority votingsocial investment
Type
Themed Section: European Social Policy and Society after Brexit: Neoliberalism, Populism, and Social Quality
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 107 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, K. M. (2015) Social Policy in the European Union, London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Boyer, R. (2016) ‘Brexit: the day of reckoning for the neo-functionalist paradigms of the European Union’, Socio-economic Review, 14, 4, 836–40.Google Scholar
Carmel, E. and Papadopoulos, T. (2016) ‘Detached, hostile, adaptable and liberalising: the chameleon qualities of the UK's relationship with EU social policy’, The Political Quarterly, 87, 2, 228–37.Google Scholar
Chochia, A., Ramiro Troitiño, D. Kerikmäe, T. and Shumilo, O. (2018) ‘Enlargement to the UK, the Referendum, of 1975 and position of Margaret Thatcher’, in Ramiro Troitiño, D., Kerikmäe, T., and Chochia, A. (eds.), Brexit History, Reasoning and Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, 115–39.Google Scholar
Copeland, P. (2015) ‘The European Union and the “social deficit”’, Representation, 51, 93–106.Google Scholar
Copeland, P. and Daly, M. (2012) ‘Varieties of poverty reduction: inserting the poverty and social exclusion target into Europe 2020’, Journal of European Social Policy, 22, 3, 273–87.Google Scholar
Copeland, P. and Daly, M. (2018) ‘The European Semester and EU social policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 56, 5, 1001–18.Google Scholar
Cram, L. (1997) Policy-Making in the European Union: Conceptual Lenses and the Integration Process, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Daly, M. (2012) ‘Paradigms in EU social policy: a critical account of Europe 2020’, Transfer, 18, 3, 273–84.Google Scholar
Daly, M. (2017) ‘The dynamics of European Union social policy’, in Kennett, P. and Lendvai-Bainton, N. (eds.), Handbook of European Social Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 93–107.Google Scholar
Dinan, D., Nugent, N. and Paterson, W. E. (eds) (2017) The European Union in Crisis, London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
European Commission (2017a) Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights, COM(2017) 250 final, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2017b) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Work-life Balance for Parents and Carers and Repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU, COM(2017) 253 final, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2017c) White Paper on the Future of Europe Reflections and Scenarios for the EU27 by 2025, Com(2017) 2025, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Falkner, G. (2016) ‘The EU's current crisis and its policy effects: research design and comparative findings’, Journal of European Integration, 38, 3, 219–35.Google Scholar
Fossum, J. E. (2015) ‘Democracy and differentiation in Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy, 22, 6, 799–815.Google Scholar
Geddes, A. (2013) Britain and the European Union, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Guerrina, R. and Masselot, A. (2018) ‘Walking into the footprint of EU Law: unpacking the gendered consequences of Brexit’, Social Policy and Society, 17, 2, 319–30.Google Scholar
Hantrais, L. (2017) The Social Dimension in EU and UK Policy Development: Shaping the Post-Brexit Legacy, London School of Economics Centre for International Studies, Working Paper CIS/2017/04.Google Scholar
Hix, S., Hagemann, S. and Frantescu, D. (2016) Would Brexit Matter? The UK's Voting Record in the Council and European Parliament, VoteWatch Europe.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration, Boulder, Co.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Journal of Social Policy (2017) ‘Brexit special issue’, 46, 4, 657–835.Google Scholar
Keedus, L., Chochia, A., Kerikmäe, T. and Ramiro Troitiño, D. (2018) ‘The British role in the emergence of a multi-speed Europe and enhanced cooperation’, in Ramiro Troitiño, D., Kerikmäe, T., and Chochia, A. (eds.), Brexit History, Reasoning and Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, 187–95.Google Scholar
Kóczy, L. A. (2016) How Brexit Affects the EU Power Distribution, Discussion Papers MT-DP – 2016/11, Institute for Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Lamping, W. (2010) ‘Mission impossible? Limits and perils of institutionalizing post-national social policy’, in Ross, M. and Borgmann-Prebil, Y. (eds.), Promoting Solidarity in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 46–72.Google Scholar
Leibfried, S. (2015) ‘Social policy: left to judges and to the markets?’, in Wallace, H., Pollack, M. A. and Young, A. R. (eds.), Policy-Making in the European Union, 7th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 263‒92.Google Scholar
Leruth, B. (2015) ‘Operationalising national preferences on Europe and differentiated integration’, Journal of European Public Policy, 22, 6, 816–35.Google Scholar
McGowan, L. and Phinnemore, D. (2017) ‘The UK: membership in crisis’, in Dinan, D., Nugent, N. and Patterson, W. E. (eds.), The European Union in Crisis, London: Palgrave, 77–99.Google Scholar
Mölder, H. (2018) ‘British approach to the European Union: from Tony Blair to David Cameron’, in Troitiño, D. Ramiro, Kerikmäe, T. and Chochia, A. (eds.), Brexit History, Reasoning and Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, 153–73.Google Scholar
O'Reilly, J., Froud, J., Johal, S., Williams, K., Warhurst, C., Morgan, G., Grey, C., Wood, G., Wright, M., Boyer, R., Frerichs, S., Sankari, S., Rona-Tas, A. and Le Galès, P. (2016) ‘Brexit: understanding the socio-economic origins and consequences’, Socio-economic Review, 14, 4, 807–54.Google Scholar
Outhwaite, W. (2017) Brexit: Sociological Responses, London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
Pond, R. (2010) ‘Implementation and impact of the Lisbon Strategy 2000–2010 on employment and social policies in the United Kingdom’, in European Parliament (ed.), The Lisbon Strategy 2000–2010: An Analysis and Evaluation of the Methods Used and Results Achieved, Final Report, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ 2008-07, Brussels: Directorate General for Internal Policies, 255–63.Google Scholar
Powell, M. (2000) ‘New Labour and the third way in the British welfare state: a new and distinctive approach?’, Critical Social Policy, 20, 1, 39–60.Google Scholar
Rasnača, Z. (2017) Bridging the Gaps or Falling Short? The European Pillar of Social Rights and What it Can Bring to EU-level Policymaking, Brussels: ETUI Working paper 2017.05.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. (1996) ‘Negative and positive integration in the political economy of European welfare states’, in Marks, G., Scharpf, F., Schmitter, P.C. and Streek, W. (eds.), Governance in the European Union, London: Sage, 15–39.Google Scholar
Social Policy and Society (2018) ‘Themed Section on UK's membership of the EU’, 17, 2, 259–348.Google Scholar
Staal, K. (2016) Brexit Implications for Influence on EU Decision Making, Presentation at VIVES workshop “The Stability of Regions, Culture and Institutions” at the University of Leuven (Belgium) on 2 June.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. (1995) ‘Neo-voluntarism: a new European social policy regime’, European Law Journal, 1, 1, 31–59.Google Scholar
Tholoniat, L. (2010) ‘The career of the Open Method of Coordination: lessons from a “soft” EU instrument’, West European Politics, 33, 1, 93–117.Google Scholar
Trubeck, D. M. and Trubeck, L. G. (2005) ‘Hard and soft law in the construction of social Europe: the role of the Open Method of Co-ordination’, European Law Journal, 11, 3, 343–64.Google Scholar
Vanhercke, B. (2012) Social Policy at EU Level: From the Anti-poverty Programmes to Europe 2020, Background Paper, Brussels: European Social Observatory.Google Scholar