Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

TABLE OF VICTORIES - nearly three times as many UK victories as EU ones

Number of key issues - 65

Total UK WIN - 28 = 43%

Total EU WIN - 11 = 17%
Total mutual compromise - 26 = 40%

UK wins 2.5 times more victories than the EU.



SPS The Agreement should Partnership should build MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

protect our high SPS on and go beyond the – both parties protect their
standards while WTO Agreement on SPS SPS standards and right
facilitating access to measures. Recognition to regulate while being
each party’s market. It of the EU as a single open to  regular review of
should ensure parties’ entity, and the SPS provisions.
SPS measures do not regionalisation. The SPS
create unjustified barriers provisions should
to trade in agri-food, respect Union rules and
through a regulatory international standards.
equivalence mechanism, Regulatory
and preserve each harmonisation is
party’s autonomy over preferred. Co-operation
their own SPS regimes. on animal welfare and
Recognition of antimicrobial resistance
regionalisation and
Co-operation on
antimicrobial resistance
and animal welfare.

Market Access No tariffs, fees, charges No tariffs, fees, charges MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
and quantitative having equivalent effect - zero tariffs and zero
restrictions on trade in or quantitative quotas
manufactured and restrictions across all
agricultural goods sectors provided that a
between UK and EU, level playing field is
where goods meet ensured through robust
relevant rules of origin commitments.  All
customs duties or taxes
on exports or any
measures of equivalent
effect should be
prohibited and no new
ones should be

Rules of Origin RoO similar to provisions Appropriate rules of MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

in recent EU FTAs such origin based on the – Provisions largely based
as EU-Japan and CETA. standard preferential on well-precedented EU
rules of origin of the proposals, with bespoke
Union and taking into rules for batteries and
account the Union’s electric vehicles that work
interest.  for both sides, and
bespoke rules for certain
other UK priority sectors
like aluminium and

Cumulation Cumulation between the Bilateral cumulation of UK WIN – full bilateral    

UK and EU, allowing EU materials only. cumulation of both
inputs and processing to materials and processing
be counted as UK input included, encouraging
in UK products exported trade between both
to the EU, and vice versa markets, including
complex supply chains

Trade Remedies A chapter that reaffirms A handful of provisions UK WIN - The UK’s WTO    
our WTO commitments reaffirming WTO plus proposals were all
on trade remedies. provisions at a high level. included in some form.
Select ‘WTO plus’ None of the UK The EU’s unprecedented
provisions that covered proposed ‘WTO plus’ proposal protecting ‘green
the application of an provisions, but one box’ agricultural subsidies
economic/public interest specific ‘WTO plus’ (part of the CAP) from
test, the lesser duty rule provision seeking to challenge was not
in accordance with their restrict our ability to included.
domestic legislation, and challenge ‘Green Box’
that neither party may agricultural subsidies at
apply multiple safeguard the WTO.
measures to the same
good, at the same time.

Technical Assert UK’s right to EU wanted to tie the UK UK WIN - The text makes    
Barriers to regulate, applying to more closely to its clear the UK’s right to
Trade trade in all manufactured regulatory framework. regulatory autonomy, but
goods, as well as to agri- at the same time contains
food products for issues helpful provisions on
not covered by sanitary regulatory cooperation,
and phytosanitary (SPS) which the Commission
requirements. had resisted. In specific
areas such as our
approach to conformity
assessment (testing to
ensure the safety of
goods) the UK
successfully resisted
attempts to tie us to EU
Technical A comprehensive TBT EU ambitions in a TBT MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
Barriers to chapter spanning chapter were more – much of the chapter is in
Trade 2 technical regulation, limited except in areas line with the WTO TBT
conformity assessment, where they saw an agreement but helpfully
standardisation, advantage to themselves goes beyond it in certain
accreditation, metrology, in going further than the areas where either the UK
market surveillance, and WTO TBT agreement. wanted stronger
marking and labelling, provisions (e.g. regulatory
building upon the WTO co-operation) or the EU
TBT Agreement, and in did (supplier’s declaration
line with recent EU Free of conformity).
Trade Agreements such
as CETA and the EU-
Japan EPA.

Mutual A Protocol on the mutual The EU resisted an MRA EU WIN - There is no    

recognition of recognition of conformity agreement, insisting that MRA
conformity assessment (product it was not in their interest
assessment testing) results to to agree an MRA which
facilitate trade in goods they felt would allow the
that are subject to third UK to continue acting as
party conformity an EU “certification hub”.
assessment processes,
consistent with
provisions found in
CETA and applying to all
relevant sectors.

Sectoral The UK wanted annexes The EU resisted UK WIN – There are five    
Annexes to the TBT chapter on inclusion of such sectoral annexes including
chemical substances; annexes. on chemicals, motor
motor vehicles and parts; vehicles and medicines,
organic products, and organics and wine even
medicines.  though the Commission
had previously resisted
inclusion of any annexes
at all (although the
annexes are less
ambitious than initial UK

Customs – Wanted mutual EU wouldn’t commit to a UK WIN – Mutual    

trusted trader recognition of authorised timeframe for recognition of trusted
schemes economic operator implementing mutual traders schemes in place
(trusted trader) security recognition, saying it from 1 January, so eligible
and safety schemes didn’t need to be in place businesses face fewer
(AEOS schemes) in from January 2021. controls at the border.
place from 1 January.

Customs – Wanted cooperation at EU didn’t want any UK WIN – Agreed    

bespoke trade roll-on roll-off ports to bespoke facilitations – cooperation on managing
facilitations maximise flow, including their focus was much flow at ‘roll-on roll-off’
clarification that more on enforcement ports like Dover and
mandatory pre- and much less on Holyhead and also on
lodgement of reducing the burden on exploring the possibility of
declarations is legal, and business. sharing import and export
a ‘single declaration’ pilot declaration data, including
involving sharing import by setting up pilot
and export data to programmes where
minimise admin burdens appropriate.
for businesses.
[EU refused to state
legality of mandatory pre-
lodgement at roro ports in
the text of the agreement.]

Customs – Wanted to cooperate on Wanted to cooperate on MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

mutual enforcement of both enforcement of customs – we have agreed
administrative sides’ customs regimes regimes, but also wanted proportionate cooperation
assistance while preserving the to commit the UK to arrangements with full
UK’s right to regulate harmonising its regime recognition of UK
and to protect its own with the EU approach. regulatory independence.
financial and security

VAT and debt Did not see any need to Wanted unprecedented MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
recovery agree for 1 January, agreement of – we have agreed a VAT
although welcome cooperation provisions and debt recovery protocol
cooperation on VAT on recovery of indirect that builds on international
agreed to longer taxes (VAT, customs agreements but with
timeframe, on Norway duties, excise) and direct modernised terms and
model [position not taxes. appropriately restricted to
stated to Cion.] indirect taxes (VAT,
customs duties and
excise), rather than the
disproportionate measures
proposed by the EU.


Legal Services The agreement should No provisions  UK WIN – The agreement    

include provisions includes provisions on
regarding the practice of home title legal services[i]. 
home title legal services. They will improve the
This will improve the clarity and certainty of
clarity of lawyers’ market market access for UK
access after 1 January.  lawyers seeking to
practise UK or
international law in the EU.

Core rules on The agreement should The agreement should MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
trade in include provisions on include provisions on – The agreement includes
services and market access, national market access, national modern rules on trade in
investment treatment, prohibition of treatment, prohibition of services and investment.
performance performance This provides business
requirements, local requirements, senior with certainty and
presence, senior managers and boards of confidence about the
managers and boards of directors, and MFN (if operating environment for
directors, and MFN (if the deal is high services supply and
the deal is high ambition). investment.
The UK secured local
presence; the EU secured
a less ambitious outcome
on senior managers and
boards of directors.
Mode IV Mode IV provisions Several elements less MUTUAL COMPROMISE  
building on CETA and ambitious than EU-Japan – The agreement includes
EU-Japan (length of stay for several EU-JP elements that were
categories, no national not tabled by the EU, most
treatment provisions for notably on short-term
short-term business business visitors.
visitors, no investor
category) The agreement did not  
include an investor
category, in line with the
EU’s proposal, which was
incompatible with the UK’s
domestic immigration

EU WIN – The Agreement

MRPQ A pathway to recognition Include a framework for    
will establish a framework
with comprehensive negotiations on the
for qualification
coverage, while conditions for the
recognition, in line with
respecting regulatory competent domestic
CETA. On the plus side,
autonomy. authorities to recognise
professional the UK extracted
qualifications necessary concessions including
to the pursuit of specific (a) making clear in the
regulated professions, agreement that other
where in the Union’s non-FTA routes exist for
interest recognition and (b)
introducing the
possibility of opening up
more tailored

Telecoms Fair and equal access to No more than what is UK WIN – the agreement    
networks and services, precedented in other EU goes beyond EU’s best
preventing anti- FTAs. precedent on foreign
competitive practices shareholding,
and delivering benefits No EU-Japan provisions authorisation and net
for consumers. on regulatory neutrality, with
cooperation regarding clarifications to protect the
mobile roaming. UK’s regulatory autonomy
– in particular our ability to
protect children from
online harms.

The agreement also

encourages regulatory
cooperation on mobile
roaming, in line with EU-

Delivery Commitments to promote Regulatory provisions in MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

Services trade in postal and line with existing Union - Agreement based on
delivery services. free trade agreements in best EU precedent.
specific sectors such as
delivery services

International The UK mandate did not The agreement should EU WIN – the Agreement    
maritime include specific include sector specific includes a specific section
transport provisions on obligations regarding on international maritime
services international maritime international maritime transport services and an
transport services or transport services but not SME chapter. AV is
SMEs. It did propose on audio visual services.  excluded.  None of these
sector-specific content It should include a was a significant win for
on Audio-VIsual chapter on SMEs. the EU.  The UK was not
particularly defensive on
IMTS or the SME chapter
(and indeed these appear
in other UK FTAs). We
always knew that the
French would veto AV
content, but it was
important for us to include
it as a signal of intent of
what we want to do in our
other trade agreements.

Financial A chapter that builds on A chapter only reflecting EU WIN - The FS chapter    
Services EU-JPN in areas like standard EU precedent text is very heavily
new financial services. and no annex. precedented. There is no
As well as (annexed) regulatory cooperation
provisions on regulatory annex although there is a
cooperation. short Joint Declaration
which says both parties
will agree by March 2021
a Memorandum of
establishing the framework
for structured regulatory
cooperation on financial
services, based on a
shared commitment to
preserve financial stability.

The EU wanted to UK WIN we saw off the

Financial We wanted to avoid    
introduce a technical “Headnote”. This is of
Services measures which would
provision – a “headnote” particular benefit  to UK
allow the EU to restrict
– which would have firms providing certain
the outsourcing of
justified EU measures to
financial services.
greatly restrict the
financial services to EU
outsourcing of financial firms.
services, including  
portfolio delegation.

The EU wanted to be UK WIN - We have

Financial The UK wanted to    
able to retaliate on insulated financial
Services – exclude Financial
financial services if it
avoidance of Services from cross-
considered the UK to services from cross-
cross retaliation if there is a retaliation should a
have breached another
suspension breach of another part of
the agreement.
part of the agreement dispute arise in
which had nothing to do another area of the
with Financial Services
agreement. This is
important to protect
financial stability.

Digital Facilitate modern forms Facilitate digital trade, UK WIN - Deal is near the    
of trade […] in both new, addressing unjustified level of their best
technology-intensive barriers to trade by precedent, with most
businesses and electronic means notably the first EU FTA
traditional industries…in provisions on open
specific areas, go government data and
beyond precedents to unprecedented provisions
reflect the direction of prohibiting requirements to
travel in current digital store or process data in a
trade negotiations specific location, thus
reducing burdensome
costs for British business.

Intellectual The agreement should The agreement should MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

Property provide for high provide for high – the agreement provides
standards of protection standards of protection for high standards of
for IP rights, making for IP rights, making protection for IP rights,
reference to and reference to and including artist’s resale
exceeding standards set exceeding standards set rights.
out in international out in international
agreements. agreements. The
agreement should also
include a provision on
artist’s resale rights.

Geographical Any agreement on GIs The envisaged NEITHER SIDE WIN –    

Indications must respect the rights partnership should there is no geographical
of both parties to set confirm the protection indications chapter – just a
their own rules on GIs of existing review clause which
allows both Parties to
and the future geographical agree to negotiate one in
directions of their indications as future if they should
respective schemes. provided for in the decide they want to
Withdrawal Agreement
and establish a
mechanism for the
protection of future
indications ensuring
the same level of
protection as that
provided for by the

Public The UK mandate did not The agreement should MUTUAL COMPROMISE  
procurement include public include provisions - The agreement includes
procurement. regarding public provisions regarding public
procurement that build procurement. However,
on the Parties’ though they build on the
commitments at the Parties’ commitments at
WTO The envisaged the WTO, the UK watered
partnership should down the EU’s original text
commit the Parties to sgnificantly to remove its
standards based on over-prescriptive elements
and make it compatible
and going beyond with the UK introducing its
those of the GPA. own independent public
procurement system.


EU law / EU The UK asked to use the The EU asked for an UK WIN - The LPF      
standards tried and tested ways of unprecedented level of provisions are not based
preventing unfair alignment with their own on EU law. There is no
competition of standard regulatory framework: it concept of EU law in the
FTAs - i.e. use concepts wanted EU standards in Treaty. 
based on international the areas of social,
law.  environmental, tax, state
aid and competition
matters to serve as a
point of reference. 

Equivalence / Wanted a tool to allow Wanted the ability to UK WIN - The UK rejected      
The the Treaty to be impose unilateral tariffs the EU’s asks for an
‘Rebalancing reopened in the future in the event the UK ‘equivalence’ mechanism,
mechanism’ and change LPF diverged too and instead secured a
provisions if they prove substantially from EU review and rebalancing
too onerous norms.  clause which allows either
side to initiate a formal
review of the economic
parts of the deal, including
the level playing field
provisions, and update the
balance of the agreement
over time. Any short-term
rebalancing measures are
strictly limited and
proportionate and subject
to the approval of an
independent arbitration

Subsidies The UK was clear that it The EU wanted us to UK WIN - The deal allows      
intended to establish its accept dynamic the UK to set up its own
own regime of subsidy alignment with EU state subsidy regime and not
control. We asked for aid policy and wanted have to follow the EU’s
reciprocal transparency the UK to adopt the state aid regime or
commitments and a right same procedures that procedures (the UK can, if
to request consultations exist in the EU, it wants, have an ex-post
on any subsidy that particularly “ex ante” regime). However, the UK
might be considered to approval of subsidies by will have to ensure that its
harm each other’s an independent body. .  subsidy regime respects
interests.  In addition, it wanted a certain principles that are
unilateral right to impose set out in the Treaty. The
  remedial measures (eg deal also allows both
tariffs) on the UK if it parties to adopt remedial
  considered the UK measures on a reciprocal
granted inappropriate basis and with tight
aid.  This option would controls, including
be available only to the compensation for abuse of
EU, not to the UK. the mechanism.

Non- The UK agreed there The EU wanted the UK MUTUAL COMPROMISE      

regression / should be a mutual to maintain EU rules on - The UK and EU have
‘Ratchet commitment to labour, climate and the agreed to non-regression
mechanism’  preventing trade environment regardless clauses for the level of
distortions, by upholding of whether any changes protection that exists on
common high standards. would have an impact on 31 December 2020, but
But we insisted on trade It wanted to include the clauses permit the UK
preserving decision- a so-called “ratchet” to abandon retained EU
making autonomy and on mechanism which would law so long as the overall
a clear link between any have constrained UK’s level of protection doesn’t
perceived regression and regulatory independence fall (i.e. there is no special
an intention to distort - by linking it to future EU status for retained EU
trade. . We did not want levels of protection. The law). The obligation only
this area covered by the EU also wanted the applies to changes that
horizontal dispute horizontal dispute have a clear impact on
settlement – but instead settlement mechanism to trade. There is no ratchet
to have a panel of apply. mechanism. The Parties
experts, that could issue agreed to a bespoke
non-binding decisions. Panel of Experts approach
which blends the UK’s
proposal for political
dispute settlement with the
option of trade remedies if
a breach of the obligations
has a serious impact on

Sustainable We wanted a The EU wanted more MUTUAL COMPROMISE      

development precedented approach, detail in this section than – Recognising
with both sides the UK had proposed. convergence on our
reaffirming their positions in international
commitment to fora and objectives for
sustainable development trade and sustainable
internationally (covering development, the UK and
areas of labour, EU agreed to adding more
environment, climate, detail in this chapter while
and general provisions). remaining in line with FTA
We also sought clauses precedents.
on co-operation and

Competition We asked for The EU wanted to UK WIN – The UK agreed      

precedented prescribe aspects of our to competition provisions
commitments on competition regimes, based on precedent. We
maintaining effective using EU competition law rejected the use of EU
competition laws, which as the baseline. The EU concepts in this chapter,
did not require legal or also wanted the ensuring that for the UK,
regulatory alignment. horizontal arbitration the commitments are
mechanism to apply to based on the UK’s
this chapter.; domestic competition law.
We successful in ensuring
that the horizontal DRM
does not apply to this

Tax The UK offered some The EU wanted the UK UK WIN – We have      

commitments to to be bound by EU tax rejected EU demands to
upholding international standards, including the be bound by their tax rules
standards on tax EU’s Code of Conduct or Code of Conduct and
transparency and fighting for Business Taxation. delivered an agreement
tax avoidance, reflecting The EU wanted these that fully respects UK tax
the UK’s global commitments to be sovereignty.
leadership in this area. subject to the horizontal
dispute resolution We have instead agreed a
  mechanism. stand-alone Joint Political
Declaration on Countering
Harmful Tax Regimes,
reflecting work done by
the OECD and existing UK
commitments, as this
creates an annual
dialogue between the UK
and the EU on these

The tax commitments are

not subject to dispute
resolution mechanism,
which was a UK ask


Fundamental A framework agreement A long-term agreement MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

principles to facilitate annual which fixes quota and – annual quota system
negotiations on quota, access in a continuation returns after a 5 and a half
access and TACs. of the status quo, and year transition, during
facilitates joint which access is fixed 
management of shared


Governance / Structure: Standalone Structure: part of main UK WIN     

EU agreement, with agreement. 
preconditions  appropriate and Structure: Part of main
proportionate Suspension/terminatio agreement, with bespoke
  governance n: suspension of whole governance provisions   
arrangements.  or part of agreement in
case of breach of Suspension/termination:
Suspension/terminatio essential elements. no automatic suspension
n: agreement should Including: suspension of or termination.
allow suspension or LE co-op if data
termination of some or all adequacy decision is Reciprocal ability to
provisions by either party repealed/suspended suspend in case of serious
for any reason. /declared invalid; and systemic concerns on
automatic termination of data protection or
Data adequacy / LE co-op if UK were to terminate in case of
continued membership of denounce European particular human rights
European Convention Convention Human concerns (agreement
Human Rights (ECHR) Rights (ECHR) or terminated on date of
should not be set as a automatic suspension if leaving European
precondition for UK were to repeal Convention Human
cooperation. domestic law giving Rights).  
effect to ECHR.
DRM: political DRM, no EU preconditions:
role for the CJEU DRM: arbitration panel cooperation not contingent
backed by CJEU on an adequacy decision
or ongoing commitment to

DRM: political DRM, no

role for CJEU

Criminal Fast and effective Arrangements UK WIN – agreement    

Records exchange of criminal appropriate to third provides for fast and
records data between country status, with the effective exchange of
the UK and EUMS. view of delivering criminal records data
capabilities that, in so far between UK and EUMS
Capability similar to as technically and legally through shared technical
European Criminal possible and considered infrastructure (European
Records Information necessary approximate Criminal Records
System (ECRIS) (i.e. those enabled by Information System
secure, automated, European Criminal (ECRIS)). No role for
electronic system to Records Information CJEU which EU previously
exchange criminal System (ECRIS). pushed for.
records information
within specific

DNA, Fast and effective Arrangements ensuring UK WIN - Fast and    

Fingerprint and exchange of national reciprocal access to data effective exchange of
Vehicle DNA, fingerprint and available at the national national DNA, fingerprint
Registration vehicle reregistration level on DNA and and vehicle registration
Data (CRD) Data between the UK fingerprints of suspected data between the UK and
and EUMS. Capabilities and convicted individuals EUMS via UK access to
similar to Prüm with no as well as vehicle Prüm. No role for the
jurisdiction for the CJEU. registrations data CJEU which EU previously
(Prüm). pushed for.

Passenger Reciprocal transfers of Timely, effective, efficient EU WIN – PMR      

Name Records PNR data from airlines to and reciprocal arrangements covering EU
(PNR) UK or EU MS competent exchanges between PNR data flowing to the
authority with Passenger Information UK, as well as PIU
  symmetrical safeguards. Units (PIUs) of PNR (Passenger Information
data. Provide a basis for Unit) to PIU information
  transfers of PNR data by exchange. However,
air carriers to the UK for agreement is
the flights between the asymmetrical
UK and EUMS. Should
comply with the relevant  
requirements, including
those set out in the EU required PNR
Opinion 1/15 of the safeguards so have
CJEU. EU sought an agreed a review clause +
asymmetrical agreement. 3-year interim period to
enable UK ability to delete
data categories as
specified under CJEU
opinion on EU-Canada. 

Real-time alerts Mechanism for the UK Simplified, efficient and MUTUAL COMPROMISE      
on and EUMS to share and effective exchange of – EU said that the UK
missing/wanted act on real-time data on existing information and could not access SIS II as
persons or persons and objects of intelligence between the not part of Schengen (i.e.
objects / SIS II interest including wanted UK and EUMS law not linked to CJEU
persons and missing enforcement authorities, position). UK did not
  persons, per SIS II. in so far as is technically accept Swedish Initiative,
and legally possible, and but we agreed Operational
considered necessary Cooperation providing
and in the Union’s another basis for bilateral
interest. EU offered the information exchange
‘Swedish Initiative’ between UK and EUMS
law enforcement
Europol Third country agreement Third country agreement UK WIN – Arrangements      
with Europol, with ability in line with precedents. based on third country
to go beyond given scale precedent but which
/ nature of UK respect scale of UK
contribution. contribution + fast and
effective information
exchange + access to
SIENA secure messaging
system and ability to
second liaison officers.

Eurojust Third country agreement Third country agreement UK WIN – Arrangements      

with Europol, with ability in line with precedents. based on third country
  to go beyond given scale precedent but which
/ nature of UK respect scale of UK
contribution. contribution + ability to
second Liaison Prosecutor
and their assistant’s to
Eurojust HQ.

Extradition Fast-track extradition Arrangements based on UK WIN – Secured fast      

arrangements based on streamlined procedures track arrangements in line
  NO/IS Surrender subject to judicial control with NO/IS model. With
Agreement with further and time limits, providing additional safeguards so
safeguards. Not seeking for UK/EU MS surrender that surrender can be
EAW participation.  of suspected and refused if someone’s
convicted individuals fundamental rights are at
  expeditiously. Possibility risk, extradition would
to waive double be disproportionate, or
  criminality requirement, they are likely to face long
and to determine periods of pre-trial
  applicability for political detention.
offences and to own

Mutual Legal Arrangements that Arrangements that UK WIN – agreed      

Assistance & improve on Council of supplement relevant arrangements improving
Asset Freezing Europe Conventions, Council of Europe on CoE Conventions in
and including streamlined Conventions, including both cases. Also included
Confiscation and time limited time limits and standard arrangements on Asset
processes.    forms, and covering Freezing and Confiscation
  supplementary forms of (AFC) which was not part
  Mutual Legal Assistance. of the EU mandate. 
Should deliver
capabilities that
‘approximate’ those
enabled by the Union

Prisoner Arrangements for No ask. EU WIN - No prisoner      

Transfer  reciprocal prisoner transfer arrangements.
transfer that improve on
  Council of Europe
Convention, which could
include time limited

Electricity and The UK sought trading EU proposed a MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

gas trading arrangements that would framework that should – Efficient electricity
arrangements enable efficient electricity include mechanisms to trading arrangements
and gas trading over the ensure as far as possible have been agreed that
interconnectors between efficient trade over ensure capacity and
the UK and EU.  interconnectors over electricity is sold together,
different timeframes. maximising value for
consumers.  Furthermore,
gas will continue to be
traded efficiently using the
PRISMA platform.

Market support The UK sought to ensure The EU sought the MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
measures that energy markets inclusion of wide-ranging – UK limited the
were suitably compatible provisions that aimed to supporting measures to
to enable trade to take ensure energy markets those most relevant to the
place, whilst respecting were competitive, non- trading arrangements,
each party’s right to discriminatory and open whilst retaining regulatory
make independent to access. freedom. EU content their
decisions on their energy core energy market
policies. liberalisation provisions
were included.  

Technical The UK sought technical The partnership should UK WIN – The parties      
cooperation cooperation between establish a framework to agreed cooperation across
electricity and gas facilitate technical all the Energy Title. Most
network operators and cooperation between notable is the commitment
organisations in the electricity and gas to build on the North Seas
planning and use of network operators and Energy Cooperation,
energy infrastructure organisations. through the establishment
connecting their of a specific forum for
systems. This included technical discussions in
cooperation to support relation to jointly realising
decarbonisation projects the large renewable
in the North Seas. energy potential of the
North Seas. Securing this
depth of cooperation on
this issue was a priority
ask for the UK.


Civil nuclear The UK and European A nuclear agreement MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

Atomic Energy should include provisions - A nuclear agreement has
Community (Euratom) for wide-ranging been agreed
should conclude a cooperation between the
Nuclear Cooperation Euratom and the United
Agreement (NCA) for Kingdom on peaceful
cooperation on civil uses of nuclear energy.
nuclear matters. The
NCA should cover
compliance with
international nuclear
safeguards, safety and
security standards, and
will facilitate civil nuclear


Aviation A Comprehensive Air Continued connectivity UK win on air transport -

Transport Agreement but not same level of EU agreed to more flexible
(CATA) and Bilateral access as MS. 5 th
ownership and control
Aviation Safety freedoms possible under rules for existing UK
Agreement (BASA) certain conditions. airlines 

Unlimited rights between Reliance on EASA for
points in the UK and certification processes;
points in the EU (3 and
only one technical annex
4 freedoms+); 
on airworthiness

Ownership and control,

with no unnecessary
restrictions on the
nationality of who can
own or effectively control
a UK or EU airline

Modern commercial
practices, including
liberal code-sharing and

Road UK and EU road UK should have less MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

transport operators road access than MS;
should be entitled to bilateral road freight UK WIN - agreement on
provide services to, from transport only; limited cabotage and cross-trade
and through each other’s transit rights through as well as bilateral rights
territories with no Ireland.
quantitative restriction EU WIN - UK agreeing to
  detailed standards
There should be
The Agreement would common standards
leave the UK free to specific to road transport,
regulate domestic on top of horizontal LPF
haulage and passenger provisions.
transport, including in a
way which reflects the
circumstances of the
island of Ireland.

Programmes Standard third country Novel terms for UK MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
participation terms for participation in EU – UK participates in Union
Horizon, Copernicus and programmes inc. 1-way programmes on a fair and
Euratom financial correction balanced set of terms.
mechanism on Horizon
Europe; new
participation fee to cover
admin costs.


Health Security Arrangements that Cooperation on health MUTUAL COMPROMISE      

enable future security in line with third – package to enable
  cooperation, particularly country precedent, continued cooperation
in light of C-19. Sought including international including on Covid-19
balanced access to fora on prevention, response measures. UK
health security for a, detection and has ad-hoc access to
expert to expert preparation in response EWRS through designated
cooperation, including to established and focal points (this builds on
use of Early Warning emerging health threats. the EU proposal and
Response System provides a useful
(EWRS) where mechanism for agreeing
necessary. access to the system) +
linked status with the
Health Security Committee
to share expertise etc.
Option to negotiate an
MoU with European
Centre for Disease Control

Cyber Security No ask, but open to Cyber dialogue and MUTUAL COMPROMISE      
cooperation where it is in commitment to – We didn’t initially want
  our interests. cooperate in international formal arrangements, and
fora. Plus UK-CERT EU what we have agreed is
cooperation + UK permissive and mutually
participation in NIS beneficial. 
Cooperation Group + UK
participation in ENISA Includes voluntary
participation with expert
committees and bodies

Security of Precedented Security of EU asked for this to be a MUTUAL COMPROMISE      

Information Information Agreement protocol and part of the – We agreed the SOIA
Agreement based on international FTA would be a supplementary
(SOIA) norms. Proposed a agreement, rather than
standalone agreement Reciprocal guarantees rolled in to the TECA. It
  (in line with precedent). for the handling / takes account of our
protection classified domestic regime.

+ Arrangements on
sensitive non-classified

Asylum and Formal UK-EU Dialogue to tackle EU WIN – No formal      

Illegal Migration arrangements on returns irregular migration + arrangements. Agreed a
+ unaccompanied cooperation through joint political declaration
  asylum-seeking children Europol. noting importance of
arrangements and that the
  UK will engage in bilateral
with EUMS.


Social Security Agreement should cover SSC provisions as part UK WIN - Personal scope    
Cooperation aggregation and export of a Mobility package. widened to capture
of pensions; necessary Practical copy paste of anyone going to travel,
healthcare; prevention of current EU SSC work or live between the
payment of dual regulations, but applying UK or the EU. This will
concurrent contributions only to a narrow cohort mean more individuals will
for people working in the of students, benefit from the Protocol.
EU, covering all researchers.  The Protocol also allows
persons.  the UK to restrict access
to family benefits for EU
citizens until they obtain
permanent residence. The
export of child benefits will
also end for EU citizens
coming to the UK in the


Form “The parameters for [the] A single agreement, EU WIN - A single    

future relationship under a single agreement, under a single
[should be] a institutional framework. institutional framework,
Comprehensive Free apart from two
Trade Agreement supplementing
(CFTA) … supplemented agreements on Civil
by a range of other Nuclear and Security of
international agreements Information. 
covering, principally,
fisheries, law
enforcement and judicial
cooperation in criminal
matters, transport, and
energy … All these
agreements should have
their own appropriate
and precedented
arrangements …” 

Termination A single termination Separate termination MUTUAL      

clauses clause for the whole clauses for all areas of COMPROMISE
agreement the agreement which
would normally be
separate agreements
Type of The Agreement should A Partnership Council UK WIN - There is no role      
governance / include provisions for covering all areas of the for the ECJ (with clauses
role of the ECJ governance single agreement, with specifically prohibiting its
arrangements … based commitments to role). A Partnership
on a Joint Committee to transparency and Council covering all areas
support the smooth exceptions.  As above, of the single agreement
functioning of the with all areas subject to and the two
Agreement, and provide binding dispute supplementing
mechanisms for resolution and with a role agreements on Civil
dialogue, and, if for the Court of Justice in Nuclear and Security of
necessary, dispute the dispute resolution Information. 
resolution. The mechanism whenever Transparency and
arrangements will reflect Union law or concepts of exceptions agreed. with
the regulatory and Union law are in play. binding or non-binding
judicial autonomy of the arbitration agreed in all
UK and accordingly there areas, but with no role for
will be no role for the the Court of Justice and
Court of Justice of the no cross suspension
European Union in the between security and
dispute resolution economic parts of the
mechanism. single agreement or
across to the
agreements on Civil
Nuclear or Security of

Essential The EU includes these in We accepted these as a EU Win      

Elements all of it’s FTAs, the UK necessary precondition
didn’t see the need to of the agreement, whilst
include them ensuring they align with
UK policy. We ensured
the threshold for actually
using them is extremely

Cross- Cross-suspension across Cross-suspension MUTUAL COMPROMISE      

suspension all areas of the between economic
agreement at the end of elements with additional
the arbitration process tests before suspension
between areas that were
separate agreements in
the UK’s original

The substantive provisions reflect current MS domestic rules which will not change as a result of the
agreement. However, this inclusion does improve the transparency of these restrictions and raises the
prospect that if MS domestic rules change in future, they will be locked in.