This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

Labour MPs are being a sent a legal opinion warning that government promises to guarantee workers’ rights after Brexit do not offer any credible assurances.

The critical legal assessment of Theresa May’s plan to “embed the strongest possible protections” of employment entitlements has been commissioned by two unions, the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) and the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA).

The evaluation has been drafted by Aidan O’Neill QC, an expert in European law who practises in both England and Scotland. He has been involved in several article 50 Brexit cases in the supreme court.

The Guardian view on workers’ rights: endangered by Brexit | Editorial Read more

Last week the business department committed itself “not to reduce the standards of workers’ rights from EU laws retained in UK law” and to assess whether future EU legislative changes should be adopted.

The initiative is part of the prime minister’s strategy to persuade Brexit-inclined Labour MPs to back her withdrawal deal in the Commons meaningful vote this week.

Some backbench Labour MPs, such as Jim Fitzpatrick, who represents Poplar and Limehouse in east London, have publicly stated they will support May’s deal partially on the basis of the government’s guarantees of worker rights.

O’Neill’s main arguments are that the prime minister’s plan does not commit the UK to matching future EU standards and that MPs cannot bind future parliaments to deliver any such pledges.

Even if parliament did implement all new EU standards, he points out, workers would still lose out on key features such as rights having primacy over conflicting domestic law and effective enforcement of remedies.

Workers would also lose access to the European court of justice in Luxembourg which, O’Neill maintains, tends to adopt a more sympathetic interpretation of the legislation.

EU’s role in improving workers’ rights is overstated | Letters Read more

In addition, the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, which has become more prominent in recent years, would cease to apply to UK employees, he notes.

The UK has traditionally been resistant to much of the pro-worker legislation developed by the EU, particularly in disputes over holiday entitlement.

In his opinion, O’Neill writes: “Brexit involves, in effect, a wholesale bonfire of the ‘vanities’, which this government evidently regards EU law rights to be.

“Even if it were proposed by the government that it would seek to insert into any withdrawal agreement with the EU a legally binding commitment obliging the UK to match EU standards in terms of workers’ rights and other social protection, this is not an obligation which could be directly enforced or insisted upon by individuals before our courts, as it would be a matter of international law only.”

Jason Moyer-Lee, the general secretary of the IWGB, said: “This legal opinion is a damning indictment of the prime minister’s non-offer last week. Workers, and in particular the precarious workers the IWGB represents, need the full protection of EU employment law. The PM’s half-hearted proposals don’t come anywhere near that protection.”

Manuel Cortes, the general secretary of the TSSA, said: “Our Labour party was created to defend the interests of working people. What we have here is a prime minister playing fast and loose on the issue of workers’ rights. Our rights are not poker chips to be played with in the Conservative Brexit casino.”