General provisions
|
A level of openness in services trade above and beyond baseline level under WTO commitments.
EU FTAs to be a starting point, specifically those with Canada and Japan; with a view to reaching greater levels of liberalisation in services than has been achieved in these FTAs.
Substantial coverage of services sectors (with exceptions and limitations as appropriate).
Sectors to include professional and business services, telecommunications services, courier and postal services, distribution services, environmental services, financial services, transport services and other services of mutual interest.
Negotiating across the four modes of supply.
Aim to preserve as much openness and access as possible to the EU market.
Provisions should respect both parties' right to regulate and be subject to limited, justified carve-outs, such as for services in the exercise of governmental authority.
Both sides to provide a schedule of their commitments - the baseline for the negotiation on schedules being both parties' best offer to date.
The arrangements should include provisions on market access and national treatment under host state rules for the Parties' service providers and investors, including with regard to establishment.
|
In practice the level of access being requested will result in new barriers to market access in the EU across a range of services sectors, as the baseline being used (above WTO and also current EU FTA levels) are more restrictive than currently.
For any flexibility to be more ambitious than the current levels of access other EU FTA partners receive, the EU will expect high degrees of regulatory alignment reflecting EU law.
|
The EU- Canada (CETA) agreement, followed by the Japan-EU EPA are examples of the two most liberalised services FTAs. While they are closer to levels of services openness in practice, they are still considerably more restrictive than the degree of services liberalisation that the UK currently enjoys.
|
The EU is limiting its offer to what has previously been offered to other third country markets in FTAs. This will result in significant barriers to UK services exports into the EU.
Any increased access the UK tries to secure is likely to be traded off with the need for the UK to adhere to level playing field provisions.
|
● Is there agreement to go beyond precedent of previous EU FTAs?
● Is the UK industry being consulting on their priorities?
● Is the UK willing to find common ground on regulatory alignment in order to gain mores services access?
● Are all designated sectors and modes of supply being covered?
|
Cross-border services
|
The Agreement should include measures to minimise barriers to the cross-border supply of services on the basis of existing FTAs, such as CETA and the EU-Japan EPA, and could draw on precedent from trade negotiations where the EU has made offers to other third-country partners. In areas of key interest, such as professional and business services, there may be scope to go beyond these commitments.
The Agreement should enhance cooperation between the parties and competent authorities.
On Cross-Border Trade in Services specifically, the Agreement should include provisions:
1. to ensure service suppliers do not face limitations such as economic needs tests;
2. on National Treatment, to provide for non-discriminatory treatment between UK and EU service suppliers;
3. Local Presence, to ensure that cross-border trade is not inhibited by establishment requirements – as the EU has recently agreed with Mexico; and
4. Most Favoured Nation treatment, to ensure the Agreement continues to provide for ongoing liberalisation.
|
There will be a number of new restrictions on accessing the EU market from the UK in each sector, including due to limitations on discriminating in favour of local suppliers (national treatment).
There are likely to be regulatory licensing etc requirements in various EU countries, creating an incentive for companies to establish a physical presence in the EU, rather than to engage in cross border supply.
Various member states will also have different restrictions on the supply of cross border services for each European market. For example, in the supply of legal services, some member states impose nationality criteria.
|
On the whole, most EU FTAs do not liberalise cross-border services trade much beyond levels committed to in the WTO (which are far more restrictive than current levels facing the UK).
|
The UK has limited scope to negotiate much access on cross border services within its limits of standard FTAs and without a significant trade off on the UK’s part.
|
● What limitations are UK providers of cross border services likely to face? Economic needs tests for e.g.?
● Are there local EU establishment requirements for UK service providers?
● Are industry priorities being pushed-for?
● Are there significant variations between member states restrictions?
● Are changes phased or immediate?
● Can industry prepare in time for these changes?
|
Temporary entry and stay for business purposes
|
The Free Trade Agreement should include significant reciprocal commitments on the temporary entry and stay of individuals, so that both EU and UK nationals can undertake short-term business trips to supply services - in defined areas. This is without prejudice to the UK’s future points-based immigration system.
The Agreement could build on commitments in CETA and the EU-Japan EPA, and should cover: short-term business visitors, including for establishment purposes; intra-company transferees; contractual service suppliers; and independent (i.e. self-employed) professionals and investors.
Both parties should clearly set out, on a reciprocal basis, the activities that can be undertaken by a short-term business visitor.
|
There will be immediate restrictions on the ability of people to travel and operate commercially between the two territories. In practice it is likely to require all UK service providers who want to operate in the EU, having to comply with relevant visa and work permit obligations.
These obligations are likely to vary between each member state and be applicable only to specified services sectors.
|
CETA and EU-Japan EPA set out conditions such as: visas and work permits for designated skilled professionals in specified sectors for the purposes of short-term business,certain intra-company transferees, investors, and business visitors for investment purposes and allowing families on postings; no numerical quotas on immigration and economic needs test prior to migration
|
This is an area where the UK will need to push for agreement, without which significant restrictions will be imposed on those needing to travel to the EU to deliver services.
|
● What visas and work permits for skilled professionals (in categories listed on p 28 of report) have been negotiated?
● Are numerical quotas on the table?
● Is removing economic needs test agreed?
● Are at least conditions of CETA and EU Japan EPA agreed here?
|
Financial services
|
Committed to preserving financial stability, market integrity, investor and consumer protection and fair competition, while respecting the Parties' regulatory and decision-making autonomy, and their ability to take equivalence decisions in their own interest. This is without prejudice to the Parties' ability to adopt or maintain any measure where necessary for prudential reasons. The Parties agree to engage in close cooperation on regulatory and supervisory matters in international bodies.
Given the depth of the relationship in this area, there should also be enhanced provision for regulatory and supervisory cooperation arrangements with the EU, and for the structured withdrawal of equivalence findings. It should include transparency and appropriate consultation in the process of adoption, suspension and withdrawal of equivalence decisions, information exchange and consultation on regulatory initiatives and other issues of mutual interest, at both political and technical levels.
Parties should start assessing equivalence with respect to each other under these frameworks, endeavouring to conclude these assessments before the end of June 2020. The Parties will keep their respective equivalence frameworks under review.
The Agreement should include legally binding obligations on market access and fair competition, in line with recent CETA and EU-Japan EPA precedent.
|
An FTA arrangement will significantly restrict market access for UK financial service providers.
If an equivalence mechanism can be agreed some types of financial services products may be deemed equivalent and allowed to be traded between the territories.
In practice, a system of equivalence will be considerably different to the current passporting system within which the financial services sector operates – where UK financial services businesses are currently free to operate in any EU member state.
The EU has tended to grant equivalence for only limited products, which then also have to be authorised.
Immediate new barriers are likely to include the loss of wholesale banking revenues and negative impacts on EU derivative contracts cleared in London. UK investment banks are unlikely to be able to provide services to their EU-based clients from the UK. It will also create an incentive for firms to relocate to the EU.
Also, under non-discrimination (MFN) rules, if the EU granted additional concessions to the UK, it may also have to offer these automatically to its other WTO trading partners. (Although there are caveats in some of the EU’s trade agreement where MFN rules do not apply in circumstances where the EU relationship with the country is particularly inter-twined, such as Switzerland.)
|
Within EU FTAs provisions for financial services tend to be for services in support of the sector (advisory and data processing) rather than core financial services themselves.
Restrictions limit operations to financial services companies that are established in the EU and/or have branches or subsidiaries through which they must operate.
The provision of insurance services is substantially limited within FTA commitments.
|
The UK will have to push for an “equivalence plus” system so additional services/ products can be granted equivalence. However there appears to be no sign of agreement to this from the EU side. Without this, significant barriers will result for the provision of financial services.
|
● Is the UK prioritising this area given its contribution to the UK economy, and if so, how?
● When will the equivalence assessment process be complete?
● Has the UK secured an equivalence-plus arrangement, for a greater range of products?
● Has the UK secured agreement to enhanced regulatory cooperation EU?
● Are the range of likely restrictions facing UK financial service providers set out for them in advance?
● Is the UK pushing for access for industries not covered by typical FTAs, such as for insurance services?
|
Digital services
|
There should be measures to support digital trade, building on the most recent precedents for example negotiations on the WTO's Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce.
The provisions on digital trade in the Agreement could, in specific areas, go beyond those precedents to reflect the direction of travel in current digital trade negotiations. For example, provisions on electronic authentication have continued to evolve as part of EU Free Trade Agreement negotiations with Australia and Mexico and at the WTO, and this should be reflected.
The Parties should establish provisions to facilitate electronic commerce, address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, such as on electronic trust and authentication services or on not requiring prior authorisation solely on the grounds that the service is provided by electronic means. These provisions should also facilitate cross-border data flows and address unjustified data localisation requirements, without affecting personal data protection rules.
The Parties should work together through multilateral fora, and establish a dialogue to exchange information, experience and best practice on emerging technologies.
The Agreement should include commitments on market access and regulatory governance of digital trade. Commitments on market access should minimise barriers to the supply of digital services provided from the territory of a party into the territory of the other party and will provide a clear and predictable basis upon which business can invest. This should lock in regulatory certainty, while preserving the UK's regulatory autonomy.
The UK is separately attempting to secure a data transfer adequacy agreement as part of the broader relationship negotiations, before the end of the transition period.
|
The EU is aligned with the UK position on many of the provisions set out. Where the two parties have differences however is in the area of facilitating the cross-border transfer of electronic information, including whether transfers can be restricted for public policy reasons. The UK would like transfers to be allowed and only limited for a specified set of legitimate public policy reasons. The EU on the other hand only wants to focus on freeing up data localisation rules and wants to maintain the right to data privacy safeguards that are exempt from disciplines.
A separate data adequacy agreement will be important in allowing the free flow of data across borders, and therefore facilitating the supply of cross-border services.
|
CETA has a stand-alone e-commerce chapter that includes provisions to protect personal information. It also promotes cooperation on issues like treatment of spam and protection from fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices. No customs duties are applicable on the e-transmission of digital products.
In the EU Japan EPA there was no assurance on the free flow of data, unlike the CPTPP which Japan is a member of also. (They separately signed a Mutual Recognition Agreement which deemed the other’s personal data protection regimes to be equivalent).
On e-commerce: they agreed no duties on electronic transmissions, recognised the legal validity of electronic contracts and signatures, and no source codes need to be transferred or accessed.
|
While significant agreement could be reached on this chapter, it will hinge on a data adequacy arrangement being agreed to allow the free flow of data which supports numerous UK services exports.
|
● Has the UK secured agreement to a digital chapter as per best practice?
● Has agreement been reached on the transfer of electronic information, with limitations only being for specific public policy reasons?
● Has the agreement been locked in on digital trade provisions beyond the EU’s previous FTAs?
● Have provisions been set up to facilitate e-commerce measures?
● Are there restrictions likely on the provision of digital services from the UK into the EU?
● Has a data adequacy agreement separately been reached?
|
Transport
|
Calling for reciprocal commitments allowing road transport operators to provide services between each other's territories, with no quantitative restrictions.
Market access to be underpinned by appropriate and relevant consumer protection requirements and social standards for international road transport, and obligations (from international agreements), notably concerning conditions to pursue the occupation of a road transport operator, conditions of employment, rules of the road, passenger carriage by road and carriage of dangerous goods by road.
Parties should consider complementary arrangements to address travel by private motorists.
Should secure continued connectivity for commercial road transport services (buses and coaches).
While there is no direct EU precedent for this (EU FTAs are with countries where cross-border road transport is impractical for geographical reasons) this is consistent with many commercial road transport bilateral agreements EU Member States have with countries outside the EU. Th
UK hauliers and passenger transport operators expected to comply with international rules (such as ECMT and AETR3) when operating outside of the UK.
The Agreement should respect the UK's autonomy as a third country and not require the UK to follow EU standards. The parties should agree how to cooperate on monitoring and enforcement. The Agreement would leave the UK free to regulate domestic haulage and passenger transport, including in a way which reflects the circumstances of the island of Ireland.
|
Given the highly interconnected nature of UK and EU road transport the potential for increased trade barriers and immediate costs on the import and export of UK goods is high.
In practice the UK requestsamount to having similar access levels to the current arrangements and similar levels to the EC/Switzerland land transport agreement. However, the EU stands by its position that after leaving the EU, the UK should have lesser levels of access than it currently enjoys.
The EU is insistent on the UK committing to level playing field provisions and keeping in regulatory alignment in this sector, whereas the UK does not want to be limited to following EU standards
The EU has made it clear it will not replicate the Swiss style bilateral agreements on separate issues
Also, the EU states that unless an agreement can be struck in this area the UK will have to access the limited quotas currently available for operators to conduct journeys to the UK and EU.
|
The EC/Switzerland land transport agreement providesfully open access to each other’s transport sectors, without quantitative restrictions (quotas) and allowing ‘grand cabotage’ (transport between member states).
|
As a starting point, both sides favour open bilateral road freight access between the two territories – in principle. However, without concessions from the UK on wider regulatory alignment there’s a real risk that the EU will resort to numerical quotas for operators and treat the UK as a third country. The UK dependence of freedom of road transport access for its exports could see this have a detrimental impact on administration and prices.
|
● Given the significant need to maintain open bilateral road freight access between the two territories has the UK prioritised this outcome and considered concessions in return?
● Has the UK secured no numerical quotas for road operators?
● Is the UK pushing for ‘grand cabotage’ as per the EU/Swiss arrangement?
● How is the UK advising and preparing UK transport operators for the changes, ahead of time?
|
Recognition of Professional Qualifications
|
The Agreement should provide a pathway for the mutual recognition of UK and EU qualifications, underpinned by regulatory cooperation
Comprehensive coverage would ensure that qualification requirements do not become an unnecessary barrier to trade in regulated services, across the modes of supply.
Ensure the parties can set their own professional standards and protect public safety. The parties should explore how competent authorities could recognise applicants who demonstrate that they meet the host states’ standards.
|
In practice the EU does not have a blanket system of recognising professional qualifications from third countries across all member states in a uniform way. EU member states tend to recognise qualifications individually.
|
In other FTAs the EU has predominantly offered supporting dialogue between member states’ competent authorities and counterparts in the third country. The Japan EPA and CETA both facilitated a framework to work to mutual recognition of qualifications. In contrast, within the CPTPP, parties have committed to recognise qualifications of any one territory in the supply of a service in another.
|
There is potential for agreement in this area – subject to trade-offs. However, the UK will have to push for more than just a framework to start discussions- as per other FTAs
|
● Has agreement been secured for mutual recognition (vs. a framework to start discussions as in other FTAs, which could take significant time)?
● What is the time-frame for achieving this?
● Are there interim measures to put in place if delayed?
|
Visual audio
|
The Agreement could promote trade in audio-visual services as well as associated businesses in the audio-visual supply chain by ensuring fair access and treatment for audio-visual services, and provide protections for the UK's audio-visual services policy framework.
|
Given the important role of UK audio-visual industries in Europe, freedom of workforce movement, free trade in audio-visual services and access to the Digital Single Market are essential; there may be quotas on European works, access to EU funding streams may be limited and UK broadcasters may consider relocating considering to the EU to continue benefitting from the Digital Single Market.
|
Both CETA and the EU Japan EPA excludes audio-visual services from liberalisation commitments.
|
Given the EU wants to exclude audio-visual services from the agreement the UK will have to consider trade-offs and press hard for it to be included, given the importance of this sector to the UK, and its trade with the EU market in this area.
|
|