An interesting point, Sue. I guess it comes down to power and money. As a third party country the UK has no access to EU financial services markets. The discussions under the MoU will determine if UK and EU regulations are compatible and comparable. If they are, the EU may grant equivalence to certain FS markets so UK companies can trade there and be regulated in the UK without the expense of maintaining a subsidiary located and regulated in the EU. Of course, as an eqwiual party, the UK can say to the EU it doesn't like its heavy regulated environment but then it's unlikely to gain equivalence - and could lose previously granted equivalence at some time in the future if it initially gains equivalence. Additionally, even if the EU Commission, etc grants equivalence that could be challenged by an EU company in the ECJ if they felt UK companies had an unfair advantage because of lighter UK regulations. If the UK doesn't have equivalent it would seem to lose much of London's market advantage bridging US an EU markets?It's interesting looking at data privacy. The US doesn't have equivalence allowing data exports to the US. But because of US companies' dominance in the tech and data market the EU came up with (what a German DP lawyer friend of mine would call) fudges: first Safe Harbour, then Privacy Shield - both of which have been ruled inadequate by the ECJ. There are other mechanisms but they could be ruled inadequate at some stage; it's why Microsoft, Google, Facebook and others have data centres in the EU, mainly Ireland. The EU has authority because the ruling blocks (and could penalise) any EU companies sending data to the US.
Michael Ixer ● 1855d