Skip to main content

Queering Brexit: What’s in Brexit for Sexual and Gender Minorities?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gender and Queer Perspectives on Brexit

Part of the book series: Gender and Politics ((GAP))

Abstract

On 24 June 2016, many people had the feeling that they woke up in a country prone to isolationism and protectionism, risking hurting its economic and social development for the sake of imperial nostalgia and moral panic about ‘loss of sovereignty’ and ‘mass migration’. That feeling inevitably affected many individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer and other (LGBTIQ+). Although the possible impact of Brexit seems to have been scrutinised from most angles, there has been limited analysis of how it may affect LGBTIQ + individuals. This contribution assesses Brexit in relation to the situation of LGBTIQ + individuals. This is particularly timely in the light of the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Walker v Innospec Limited, where the Court relied on EU law to hold a provision of the Equality Act 2010 unlawful for violating pension rights of same-sex couples.

This contribution builds on a shorter piece published by the authors as a blog entry (Danisi et al. 2017). The authors are members of SOGICA (www.sogica.org), a four-year (2016–2020) research project funded by the European Research Council (ERC) that explores the social and legal experiences of individuals across Europe claiming internal protection on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) (grant agreement No. 677693). The authors wish to thank the pertinent and useful suggestions offered by Bal Sokhi-Bulley, Philip Bremner, and the participants at the workshop ‘Europe, Brexit and Human Rights’ held on 22 November 2017 and organised by the Sussex Rights and Justice Research Centre, and the workshop ‘Feminist and Queer Perspectives on Brexit’ held on 17 November 2017 and organised by the Sussex European Institute, both at the University of Sussex.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    We recognise that ‘SOGI minorities’ is not an ideal expression, to the extent that not everyone we wish to refer to may identify with it, but for practical reasons we will use it as shorthand to refer to everyone who does not identify as heterosexual or cis-gender; we ask readers to interpret this expression in this broad sense throughout this contribution.

  2. 2.

    The only relevant analyses of which the authors are aware other than the one they have produced (Danisi et al. 2017) have been published by Wintemute (2016), Cooper (2018), Cooper et al. (2018) and the Trade Union Congress (2018).

  3. 3.

    [2017] UKSC 47.

  4. 4.

    This judgment will be further discussed below (Sect. 3).

  5. 5.

    Treaty on European Union (consolidated version), OJ C 326, 26 October 2012.

  6. 6.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26 October 2012. Article 21(1) reads as follows: ‘Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.’

  7. 7.

    In light of the CJEU’s position in Mangold (C-144/04), however, the general prohibition based on sexual orientation might have already existed as a general principle of EU law before the entry into force of the Charter (Schiek 2006).

  8. 8.

    Directive 2006/54/EC of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), OJ L 204/23, 26 July 2006; and Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, OJ L373, 21 December 2004.

  9. 9.

    Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, OJ C 340, 10 November 1997.

  10. 10.

    Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 2 December 2000. The Directive is based on Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version), OJ C 326, 26 October 2012).

  11. 11.

    Proposal for a directive of 2 July 2008 against discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief beyond the workplace, COM/2008/0426 final.

  12. 12.

    The example is taken from the CJEU’s Judgment of 25 April 2013, Asociaţia Accept, C-81/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:275.

  13. 13.

    Judgment of 1 April 2008, Maruko, C-267/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:179.

  14. 14.

    Judgment of 10 May 2011, Römer, C-147/08, ECLI:EU:C:2011:286.

  15. 15.

    Judgment of 12 December 2013, Hay, C-267/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:823.

  16. 16.

    Ibid. The importance of this approach is even more evident if compared with the more restrictive attitude adopted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

  17. 17.

    While this approach excludes everyone who has not undergone reassignment, people who have undergone gender reassignment enjoy a wider protection under EU law than sexual orientation minorities. In fact, if compared to the Equality Framework Directive, gender Directives also cover access to goods and services and occupational social security schemes. See Millns’ chapter in this book for all references on EU gender equality framework.

  18. 18.

    Judgment of 30 April 1996, P v S and Cornwall County Council, C-13/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:170.

  19. 19.

    Judgment of 7 January 2004, K.B. v National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health, C-117/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:7.

  20. 20.

    Judgment of 27 April 2006, Sarah Margaret Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, C-423/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:256.

  21. 21.

    Judgment of 26 June 2018, MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Case C-451/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:492. The CJEU has tried nonetheless to restrict the scope of the judgment, in light of the Member States’ competence in matters of civil status and legal recognition of the change of a person’s gender: see points 27–29 and 47.

  22. 22.

    Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, OJ L 337, 20 December 2011.

  23. 23.

    See EU Commission, Towards a Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe, 6 April 2016, COM(2016) 197 final.

  24. 24.

    Judgment of 7 November 2013, Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X and Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, C-199-201/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:720.

  25. 25.

    Judgment of 2 December 2014, A and Others v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, C-148-150/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2406.

  26. 26.

    Judgment of 25 January 2018, F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, C-473/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:36.

  27. 27.

    Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of the Union and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30 April 2004.

  28. 28.

    Judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman, C-673/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385. See also the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet concerning the same case, delivered on 11 January 2018, which was based more on the principle of non-discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter).

  29. 29.

    Ibid., point 46 (in contrast to arguments advanced by many Member States that still have not entitled same-sex couples to marry).

  30. 30.

    See Article 52 of the Charter and, for instance, ECtHR, 21 July 2017, Oliari and Others v. Italy, Applications nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11.

  31. 31.

    Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components, OJ L 91, 30 March 2004.

  32. 32.

    Judgment of 29 April 2015, Léger, C-528/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:288.

  33. 33.

    See Council Decision (EU) 2017/435 of 28 February 2017 on the conclusion of the Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005, OJ L 67, 14 March 2017; European Parliament resolution of 11 February 2015 on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2014/2154(INI)), para. K1.

  34. 34.

    At the Conservative Party Conference in 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron said ‘I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative’ (BBC News 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15189614).

  35. 35.

    Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  36. 36.

    Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013; Northern Ireland Assembly. 2015. “Official Report (Hansard), Monday 2 November 2015 Volume 109, No 1.” http://data.niassembly.gov.uk/HansardXml/plenary-02-11-2015.pdf.

  37. 37.

    Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

  38. 38.

    Judgment of 30 April 1996, P v S and Cornwall County Council, C-13/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:170.

  39. 39.

    Article 9(2) of the Equality Framework Directive.

  40. 40.

    Measures now in the Equality Act 2010 correspond to those in Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2003, Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2006, Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2006, Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (NI) 2007.

  41. 41.

    For example, Galop, the UK’s LGBT anti-violence organisation, is a partner in the project Come Forward: Empowering and Supporting Victims of Anti-LGBT Hate Crimes, funded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (2014–2020) of the European Union, http://www.lgbthatecrime.eu/partners.

  42. 42.

    Judgment of 26 June 2018, MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Case C-451/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:492.

  43. 43.

    Past programmes such as PROGRESS, which ran between 2007–2013, provided financial support to civil society organisations to help them embed EU equality law, such as through the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, raise awareness and train employers and employees (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/sexual_orientation_en.pdf). The European Refugee Fund (ERF, EUR 630 million over the period 2008–2013) supported EU countries’ efforts in receiving refugees and displaced persons and in guaranteeing access to consistent, fair and effective asylum procedures (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/financing/fundings/migration-asylum-borders/refugee-fund_en). In 2017, the EU FRA published a review of the ‘Current migration situation in the EU: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex asylum seekers’ (FRA 2017).

  44. 44.

    See Treaties’ provisions still requiring special procedures for adopting EU legislation, which are relevant also for SOGI minorities, including Article 19 TFUE on equality related powers or those related to foreign affairs, in light of the conclusions of international agreements with countries with high records of human rights violations towards sexual minorities.

  45. 45.

    For further information, see the EU’s Legislative Train Schedule web page (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-area-of-justice-and-fundamental-rights/file-anti-discrimination-directive), the EUR-Lex web page with all relevant documents (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/HIS/?uri=CELEX:52008PC0426), and Council of the EU, Dossier interinstitutionnel, 2008/0140 (CNS), 8 December 2014, p. 2, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=FR&f=ST%2015705%202014%20ADD%201%20REV%202.

  46. 46.

    See Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and Gender Recognition Act 2004.

  47. 47.

    See Article 52 of the Charter. We are aware that, in areas such as free movement and asylum, the EU seems to provide a higher protection in relation to SOGI minorities than the ECHR. Yet, this protection is in any case limited to EU law’s scope of application and may also be offered by the ECtHR’s reading of the ECHR as a ‘living instrument’ in light of the wider range of situations falling within the scope of the ECHR. See Article 1 ECHR on the scope of the Convention, which does not entail the same limitations imposed on the Charter.

  48. 48.

    In this respect, from an international law perspective, the hypothesis of withdrawal from the ECHR must take into account the fact that, once rights are recognised to people, they cannot be simply removed at will by a State (UN Human Rights Committee 1997; Conforti 2013).

  49. 49.

    House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights, A Bill of Rights for the UK? Government Response to the Committee’s Twenty-ninth Report of Session 200708, Third Report of Session 2008–09, HL Paper 15/HC 145, 2009.

Bibliography

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nuno Ferreira .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Danisi, C., Dustin, M., Ferreira, N. (2019). Queering Brexit: What’s in Brexit for Sexual and Gender Minorities?. In: Dustin, M., Ferreira, N., Millns, S. (eds) Gender and Queer Perspectives on Brexit. Gender and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03122-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics