This article considers how one of the ‘archipelago of contradictions’ raised by Brexit is the prospect of unconventional policy change, in so far as it includes – amongst other options – ‘returning’ to prior conventions that were scaled up from the UK to the EU, and then returned to the UK through EU directives. To explore this, the paper divides UK equality legislation into three types: (a) that which was created in the UK (b) that which flows from membership of the European Union and (c) that which reflects an outgrowth of the two. The translation of this into social policy has typically taken a patchwork approach, including a discursive public function which addresses the rights of distinct groups as well as their modes of interaction. The scope and scale of existing equality approaches have therefore become central to the kinds of social and political citizenship achieved by Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Britons. While the dangers of Brexit rhetoric are apparent to see, we do not yet know how withdrawal from the EU revises (a), (b) or (c). The article makes a tentative attempt to shed light on these entanglements by focusing on public policies enacted to pursue race equality in particular.

The prospect of a profound transformation in the relationship between the UK and the European Union has raised a range of economic, social and political concerns (Dhingra et al., 2016; Booth et al., 2015; Irwin, 2015; Ebell and Warren, 2016). Whilst the ultimate shape of a negotiated post-Brexit settlement is uncertain, the potential loss or reduction in access to EU funding streams, educational mobility, EU labour market access, and changes to employment rights and regulations will impact significantly upon young people across the UK. Underlining this, the transition between education and employment has been evidenced as a period when young people experience increased risk of poverty and social exclusion (MacDonald, 2011; Furlong and Cartmel, 2004; Ellison, 2014; ILO, 2016). This article provides an analysis of the role of EU funding streams and operational programmes directed at young people's transitions between education and employment across the UK. The co-ordinated use of EU funding instruments aimed at rebalancing economic and social inequalities between wealthier and poorer regions and groups within the EU is evidenced as improving labour market outcomes for young people living in the most disadvantaged regions of the UK. In light of this, the article contends that future post-Brexit UK governments will need to develop redistributive investment strategies within coherent policy architectures and inclusive forms of governance to ensure the continued delivery of operational programmes for young people which are relevant, effective and sustainable at a local level.

Capitalist economies depend on private business investment, and all governments in similar states compete to induce businesses to invest through various policy interventions. In so doing, they compete with other governments to retain current investors and to encourage new ones from elsewhere. The implications for policy-making and, by extension, citizens, are huge. The pressure on governments to capture new investment has an impact on taxation policies, workplace regulations, legal protections, public infrastructure and social policies. However, not all governments compete for investment in the same way at the same time, and not all businesses are attracted by the same inducements offered by states, highlighting the possibility that public policies shape investment strategies, just as investment strategies also shape public policies. It is its development of relatively unique and aggressive strategies to capture new investment that places the UK in a vulnerable position post-Brexit. It has successfully attracted mobile corporations to its shores, in part because it has offered a particularly favourable gateway into Europe for foreign capital. This raises questions about how the country will seek to compete for capital investment in future. This paper examines these questions with reference to both theoretical and empirical evidence.

European Union (EU) law-making has played a key role in promoting social equity in the UK through safer working conditions, enhanced rights for workers, and by reducing environmental pollution. Concerns over its effect on business competitiveness have long been a major driver of Euroscepticism, underpinning criticism of the EU by influential opinion formers within British conservatism. The Leave Campaign argued that EU laws damage the UK economy by imposing unnecessary costs on British business, claiming that EU regulations cost the UK economy £33.3 billion per year. This paper examines the reliability of, and assumptions that underpin, aggregated estimates of the costs and benefits of EU-derived regulation, and considers how the economisation of public policy influences understanding of the social value of regulation. It brings together the findings of studies that have evaluated the accuracy of the estimated costs and benefits in formal impact assessments and analyses impact assessments of EU-derived policy instruments aimed at regulating working conditions. Our findings suggest that aggregated estimates represent poor guides to understanding the social costs and benefits of social regulation and highlight the value of discarding impact assessment estimates of costs and benefits in the context of efforts to shape social policy post-Brexit.

Since 1988, when the current EU Cohesion Policy was introduced, it has played an influential role in setting priorities for policies aimed at dealing with the effects of European economic integration on regional and social disparities. Although, latterly, the amount of money spent in the UK through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) has declined, EU programmes have had a disproportionate effect on the design and implementation of UK policies shaping regional and local economic and social development. This paper starts by recalling how EU Cohesion Policy has functioned in the UK, then considers how Brexit may affect regional and social development and the need for a corresponding policy response, focusing on the sorts of policies currently supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). The paper shows that filling the policy vacuum will be far from straightforward because complementary national policies and institutional frameworks have lacked consistency or coherence. It concludes by examining the wider policy issues arising from rethinking domestic policy outside the ESIF framework. The sub-national level, in particular, will need a fresh approach following Brexit.

The referendum vote for Remain in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the small majority for Leave in Wales immediately attracted much attention to the position of the devolved governments on Brexit negotiations and to the impact of Brexit on their jurisdictions. As the core of devolved powers relate to social policy, identifying the impact of leaving the EU on aspects of social policy is highly significant. This article examines the impact of EU programmes, funding, directives and regulations as delivered in recent years, noting the nature of the participation of the devolved administrations in EU decision making. The post-referendum concerns of the devolved governments and their approaches to Brexit and Brexit negotiations are explained. Also discussed are the likely major changes as well as possible changes that will take place in the operation of devolution after Brexit.

Leaving the European Union (so-called ‘Brexit’) is a ‘critical moment’ for health policy reform which can pave the way to different pathways, including, a ‘critical juncture’. Given that Brexit cannot be undone without a second referendum, it opens up opportunities to elude European constraints for reform along the lines of equity, employment rights and patient choice. Brexit deepens the financial crisis of the National Health Service (NHS) by increasing hiring costs and imposing new transaction costs to accommodate patient cross-border mobility and international public health needs. Given the weak sustainability of the NHS, it could lead to major system reform.

European Freedom of Movement (EFM) was central to the referendum on the UK's membership of the EU. Under a ‘hard’ Brexit scenario, it is expected that EFM between the UK and the EU will cease, raising uncertainties about the rights of existing EU citizens in the UK and those of any future EU migrants. This article is concerned with the prospects for family rights linked to EFM which, I argue, impinge on a range of families – so-called ‘Brexit families’ (Kofman, 2017) – beyond those who are EU-national families living in the UK. The article draws on policy analysis of developments in the conditionality attached to the family rights of non-EU migrants, EU migrants and UK citizens at the intersection of migration and welfare systems since 2010, to identify the potential trajectory of rights post-Brexit. While the findings highlight stratification in family rights between and within those three groups, the pattern is one in which class and gender divisions are prominent and have become more so over time as a result of the particular types of conditionality introduced. I conclude by arguing that, with the cessation of EFM, those axes will also be central in the re-ordering of the rights of ‘Brexit families’.

The double crisis approach distinguishes two kinds of challenge confronting modern welfare states: long-term structural problems and short-term difficulties resulting from policy choices which affect the success with which the long-term issues can be addressed. Structural challenges include two main areas:

• • globalisation and technological changes demanding that governments direct attention to national competitiveness, and

• • population ageing, requiring more spending on pensions, and health and social care.