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.
  UK OPENING ASK
SPS The Agreement should
protect our high SPS
standards while
facilitating access to
each party’s market. It
should ensure parties’
SPS measures do not
create unjustified barriers
to trade in agri-food,
through a regulatory
equivalence mechanism,
and preserve each
party’s autonomy over
their own SPS regimes.
Recognition of
regionalisation and
compartmentalisation.
Co-operation on
antimicrobial resistance
and animal welfare.
Market Access No tariffs, fees, charges
and quantitative
restrictions on trade in
manufactured and
agricultural goods
between UK and EU,
where goods meet
relevant rules of origin
Rules of Origin RoO similar to provisions
in recent EU FTAs such
as EU-Japan and CETA.
EU OPENING ASK UK or EU WIN    
GOODS    
Partnership should build MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
on and go beyond the – both parties protect their
WTO Agreement on SPS SPS standards and right
measures. Recognition to regulate while being
of the EU as a single open to  regular review of
entity, and the SPS provisions.
regionalisation. The SPS
provisions should
respect Union rules and
international standards.
Regulatory
harmonisation is
preferred. Co-operation
on animal welfare and
antimicrobial resistance
No tariffs, fees, charges MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
having equivalent effect - zero tariffs and zero
or quantitative quotas
restrictions across all
sectors provided that a
level playing field is
ensured through robust
commitments.  All
customs duties or taxes
on exports or any
measures of equivalent
effect should be
prohibited and no new
ones should be
introduced. 
Appropriate rules of MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
origin based on the – Provisions largely based
standard preferential on well-precedented EU

Cumulation Cumulation between the
UK and EU, allowing EU
inputs and processing to
be counted as UK input
in UK products exported
to the EU, and vice versa
Trade Remedies A chapter that reaffirms
our WTO commitments
on trade remedies.
Select ‘WTO plus’
provisions that covered
the application of an
economic/public interest
test, the lesser duty rule
in accordance with their
domestic legislation, and
that neither party may
apply multiple safeguard
measures to the same
good, at the same time.
Technical Assert UK’s right to
Barriers to regulate, applying to
Trade trade in all manufactured
goods, as well as to agri-
food products for issues
not covered by sanitary
and phytosanitary (SPS)
requirements.
rules of origin of the
Union and taking into
account the Union’s
interest.  for both sides, and
Bilateral cumulation of
materials only.
A handful of provisions
reaffirming WTO
provisions at a high level.
None of the UK
proposed ‘WTO plus’
provisions, but one
specific ‘WTO plus’
provision seeking to
restrict our ability to
challenge ‘Green Box’
agricultural subsidies at
the WTO.
EU wanted to tie the UK
more closely to its
regulatory framework.
proposals, with bespoke
rules for batteries and
electric vehicles that work
bespoke rules for certain
other UK priority sectors
like aluminium and
chocolate.
UK WIN – full bilateral    
cumulation of both
materials and processing
included, encouraging
trade between both
markets, including
complex supply chains
UK WIN - The UK’s WTO    
plus proposals were all
included in some form.
The EU’s unprecedented
proposal protecting ‘green
box’ agricultural subsidies
(part of the CAP) from
challenge was not
included.
UK WIN - The text makes    
clear the UK’s right to
regulatory autonomy, but
at the same time contains
helpful provisions on
regulatory cooperation,
which the Commission
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
approaches.
Technical A comprehensive TBT
Barriers to chapter spanning
Trade 2 technical regulation,
conformity assessment,
standardisation,
accreditation, metrology,
market surveillance, and
marking and labelling,
building upon the WTO
TBT Agreement, and in
line with recent EU Free
Trade Agreements such
as CETA and the EU-
Japan EPA.
Mutual A Protocol on the mutual
recognition of recognition of conformity
conformity assessment (product
assessment testing) results to
facilitate trade in goods
that are subject to third
party conformity
assessment processes,
consistent with
provisions found in
CETA and applying to all
relevant sectors.
Sectoral The UK wanted annexes
Annexes to the TBT chapter on
chemical substances;
motor vehicles and parts;
organic products, and
medicines.  though the Commission
Customs – Wanted mutual
trusted trader recognition of authorised
schemes economic operator
(trusted trader) security
and safety schemes
(AEOS schemes) in
place from 1 January.
Customs – Wanted cooperation at
bespoke trade roll-on roll-off ports to
facilitations maximise flow, including
clarification that
mandatory pre-
lodgement of
declarations is legal, and
a ‘single declaration’ pilot
involving sharing import
and export data to
EU ambitions in a TBT
chapter were more
limited except in areas
where they saw an
advantage to themselves
in going further than the
WTO TBT agreement.
The EU resisted an MRA
agreement, insisting that
it was not in their interest
to agree an MRA which
they felt would allow the
UK to continue acting as
an EU “certification hub”.
The EU resisted
inclusion of such
annexes.
EU wouldn’t commit to a
timeframe for
implementing mutual
recognition, saying it
didn’t need to be in place
from January 2021.
EU didn’t want any
bespoke facilitations –
their focus was much
more on enforcement
and much less on
reducing the burden on
business.
MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
– much of the chapter is in
line with the WTO TBT
agreement but helpfully
goes beyond it in certain
areas where either the UK
wanted stronger
provisions (e.g. regulatory
co-operation) or the EU
did (supplier’s declaration
of conformity).
EU WIN - There is no    
MRA
UK WIN – There are five    
sectoral annexes including
on chemicals, motor
vehicles and medicines,
organics and wine even
had previously resisted
inclusion of any annexes
at all (although the
annexes are less
ambitious than initial UK
proposals).
UK WIN – Mutual    
recognition of trusted
traders schemes in place
from 1 January, so eligible
businesses face fewer
controls at the border.
UK WIN – Agreed    
cooperation on managing
flow at ‘roll-on roll-off’
ports like Dover and
Holyhead and also on
exploring the possibility of
sharing import and export
declaration data, including
by setting up pilot
programmes where
 minimise admin burdens
for businesses.
Customs – Wanted to cooperate on
mutual enforcement of both
administrative sides’ customs regimes
assistance while preserving the
UK’s right to regulate
and to protect its own
financial and security
interests.
VAT and debt Did not see any need to
recovery agree for 1 January,
although welcome
cooperation on VAT
agreed to longer
timeframe, on Norway
model [position not
stated to Cion.]
SERVICES
Legal Services The agreement should
include provisions
regarding the practice of
home title legal services.
This will improve the
clarity of lawyers’ market
access after 1 January.  lawyers seeking to
Core rules on The agreement should
trade in include provisions on
services and market access, national
investment treatment, prohibition of
performance
requirements, local
presence, senior
managers and boards of
directors, and MFN (if
the deal is high
ambition).
appropriate.
[EU refused to state
legality of mandatory pre-
lodgement at roro ports in
the text of the agreement.]
Wanted to cooperate on MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
enforcement of customs – we have agreed
regimes, but also wanted proportionate cooperation
to commit the UK to arrangements with full
harmonising its regime recognition of UK
with the EU approach. regulatory independence.
Wanted unprecedented MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
agreement of – we have agreed a VAT
cooperation provisions and debt recovery protocol
on recovery of indirect that builds on international
taxes (VAT, customs agreements but with
duties, excise) and direct modernised terms and
taxes. appropriately restricted to
indirect taxes (VAT,
customs duties and
excise), rather than the
disproportionate measures
proposed by the EU.
   
No provisions  UK WIN – The agreement    
includes provisions on
home title legal services[i]. 
They will improve the
clarity and certainty of
market access for UK
practise UK or
international law in the EU.
The agreement should MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
include provisions on – The agreement includes
market access, national modern rules on trade in
treatment, prohibition of services and investment.
performance This provides business
requirements, senior with certainty and
managers and boards of confidence about the
directors, and MFN (if operating environment for
the deal is high services supply and
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
building on CETA and ambitious than EU-Japan
EU-Japan (length of stay for several
categories, no national
treatment provisions for
short-term business
visitors, no investor
category)
MRPQ A pathway to recognition Include a framework for
with comprehensive negotiations on the
coverage, while conditions for the
respecting regulatory competent domestic
autonomy. authorities to recognise
professional
qualifications necessary
to the pursuit of specific
regulated professions,
where in the Union’s
interest
Telecoms Fair and equal access to No more than what is
networks and services, precedented in other EU
preventing anti- FTAs.
competitive practices
and delivering benefits No EU-Japan provisions
for consumers. on regulatory
cooperation regarding
mobile roaming.
Delivery Commitments to promote Regulatory provisions in
Services trade in postal and line with existing Union
delivery services. free trade agreements in
specific sectors such as
delivery services
International The UK mandate did not The agreement should
maritime include specific include sector specific
transport provisions on obligations regarding
services international maritime international maritime
transport services or transport services but not
MUTUAL COMPROMISE  
– The agreement includes
EU-JP elements that were
not tabled by the EU, most
notably on short-term
business visitors.
The agreement did not  
include an investor
category, in line with the
EU’s proposal, which was
incompatible with the UK’s
domestic immigration
policy.
EU WIN – The Agreement
   
will establish a framework
for qualification
recognition, in line with
CETA. On the plus side,
the UK extracted
concessions including
(a) making clear in the
agreement that other
non-FTA routes exist for
recognition and (b)
introducing the
possibility of opening up
more tailored
approaches.
UK WIN – the agreement    
goes beyond EU’s best
precedent on foreign
shareholding,
authorisation and net
neutrality, with
clarifications to protect the
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-
Japan.
MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
- Agreement based on
best EU precedent.
EU WIN – the Agreement    
includes a specific section
on international maritime
transport services and an
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
Understanding
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
geographical
indications ensuring
the same level of
protection as that
provided for by the
Withdrawal
Agreement.

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.

LEVEL PLAYING FIELD / OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION    

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
panel.

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
trade.

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
transparency

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

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

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

commitments to to be bound by EU tax
upholding international standards, including the
standards on tax EU’s Code of Conduct
transparency and fighting for Business Taxation.
tax avoidance, reflecting The EU wanted these
the UK’s global commitments to be
leadership in this area. subject to the horizontal
dispute resolution
  mechanism.
rejected EU demands to
be bound by their tax rules
or Code of Conduct and
delivered an agreement
that fully respects UK tax
sovereignty.
We have instead agreed a
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
issues.

The tax commitments are

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

FISHERIES    

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
stocks.

LAW ENFORCEMENT    

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
ECHR

DRM: political DRM, no

role for CJEU

Criminal Fast and effective Arrangements UK WIN – agreement    

Records exchange of criminal appropriate to third
records data between country status, with the
the UK and EUMS. view of delivering
capabilities that, in so far
Capability similar to as technically and legally
European Criminal possible and considered
Records Information necessary approximate
System (ECRIS) (i.e. those enabled by
secure, automated, European Criminal
electronic system to Records Information
exchange criminal System (ECRIS).
records information
within specific
deadlines).
DNA, Fast and effective Arrangements ensuring
Fingerprint and exchange of national reciprocal access to data
Vehicle DNA, fingerprint and available at the national
Registration vehicle reregistration level on DNA and
Data (CRD) Data between the UK fingerprints of suspected
and EUMS. Capabilities and convicted individuals
similar to Prüm with no as well as vehicle
jurisdiction for the CJEU. registrations data
(Prüm).
Passenger Reciprocal transfers of Timely, effective, efficient
Name Records PNR data from airlines to and reciprocal
(PNR) UK or EU MS competent exchanges between
authority with Passenger Information
  symmetrical safeguards. Units (PIUs) of PNR
data. Provide a basis for
  transfers of PNR data by
air carriers to the UK for
the flights between the
UK and EUMS. Should
comply with the relevant
requirements, including
those set out in the
Opinion 1/15 of the
CJEU. EU sought an
asymmetrical agreement.
Real-time alerts Mechanism for the UK Simplified, efficient and
on and EUMS to share and effective exchange of
missing/wanted act on real-time data on existing information and
persons or persons and objects of intelligence between the
objects / SIS II interest including wanted UK and EUMS law
persons and missing enforcement authorities,
  persons, per SIS II. in so far as is technically
and legally possible, and
considered necessary
and in the Union’s
interest. EU offered the
‘Swedish Initiative’
 
provides for fast and
effective exchange of
criminal records data
between UK and EUMS
through shared technical
infrastructure (European
Criminal Records
Information System
(ECRIS)). No role for
CJEU which EU previously
pushed for.
UK WIN - Fast and    
effective exchange of
national DNA, fingerprint
and vehicle registration
data between the UK and
EUMS via UK access to
Prüm. No role for the
CJEU which EU previously
pushed for.
EU WIN – PMR      
arrangements covering EU
PNR data flowing to the
UK, as well as PIU
(Passenger Information
Unit) to PIU information
exchange. However,
agreement is
asymmetrical
 
EU required PNR
safeguards so have
agreed a review clause +
3-year interim period to
enable UK ability to delete
data categories as
specified under CJEU
opinion on EU-Canada. 
MUTUAL COMPROMISE      
– EU said that the UK
could not access SIS II as
not part of Schengen (i.e.
not linked to CJEU
position). UK did not
accept Swedish Initiative,
but we agreed Operational
Cooperation providing
another basis for bilateral
information exchange
between UK and EUMS
law enforcement
authorities.  
Europol Third country agreement
with Europol, with ability in line with precedents.
to go beyond given scale
/ nature of UK
contribution.
Third country agreement UK WIN – Arrangements      
based on third country
precedent but which
respect scale of UK
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
  NO/IS Surrender subject to judicial control
Agreement with further and time limits, providing
safeguards. Not seeking for UK/EU MS surrender
EAW participation.  of suspected and
convicted individuals
  expeditiously. Possibility
to waive double
  criminality requirement,
and to determine
  applicability for political
offences and to own
nationals.
track arrangements in line
with NO/IS model. With
additional safeguards so
that surrender can be
refused if someone’s
fundamental rights are at
risk, extradition would
be disproportionate, or
they are likely to face long
periods of pre-trial
detention.

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
instruments.

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
processes.

Electricity and The UK sought trading
gas trading arrangements that would
arrangements enable efficient electricity
and gas trading over the
interconnectors between
the UK and EU.  interconnectors over
Market support The UK sought to ensure
measures that energy markets
were suitably compatible
to enable trade to take
place, whilst respecting
each party’s right to
make independent
decisions on their energy
policies.
Technical The UK sought technical
cooperation cooperation between
electricity and gas
network operators and
organisations in the
planning and use of
energy infrastructure
connecting their
systems. This included
cooperation to support
decarbonisation projects
in the North Seas.
CIVIL NUCLEAR
Civil nuclear The UK and European
Atomic Energy
Community (Euratom)
should conclude a
Nuclear Cooperation
Agreement (NCA) for
cooperation on civil
nuclear matters. The
NCA should cover
compliance with
international nuclear
safeguards, safety and
security standards, and
ENERGY    
EU proposed a MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
framework that should – Efficient electricity
include mechanisms to trading arrangements
ensure as far as possible have been agreed that
efficient trade over ensure capacity and
electricity is sold together,
different timeframes. maximising value for
consumers.  Furthermore,
gas will continue to be
traded efficiently using the
PRISMA platform.
The EU sought the MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
inclusion of wide-ranging – UK limited the
provisions that aimed to supporting measures to
ensure energy markets those most relevant to the
were competitive, non- trading arrangements,
discriminatory and open whilst retaining regulatory
to access. freedom. EU content their
core energy market
liberalisation provisions
were included.  
The partnership should UK WIN – The parties      
establish a framework to agreed cooperation across
facilitate technical all the Energy Title. Most
cooperation between notable is the commitment
electricity and gas to build on the North Seas
network operators and Energy Cooperation,
organisations. through the establishment
of a specific forum for
technical discussions in
relation to jointly realising
the large renewable
energy potential of the
North Seas. Securing this
depth of cooperation on
this issue was a priority
ask for the UK.
   
A nuclear agreement MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
should include provisions - A nuclear agreement has
for wide-ranging been agreed
cooperation between the
Euratom and the United
Kingdom on peaceful
uses of nuclear energy.
 will facilitate civil nuclear
trade.

TRANSPORT    

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

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

 
Unlimited rights between Reliance on EASA for
points in the UK and certification processes;
points in the EU (3 and
rd
only one technical annex
4 freedoms+); 
th
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
wet-leasing
arrangements

Road UK and EU road UK should have less MUTUAL COMPROMISE    

transport operators
should be entitled to
provide services to, from
and through each other’s
territories with no
quantitative restriction
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.
road access than MS;
bilateral road freight UK WIN - agreement on
transport only; limited cabotage and cross-trade
transit rights through as well as bilateral rights
Ireland.
EU WIN - UK agreeing to
  detailed standards
There should be
common standards
specific to road transport,
on top of horizontal LPF
provisions.

PROGRAMMES    
Programmes Standard third country Novel terms for UK
participation terms for participation in EU
Horizon, Copernicus and programmes inc. 1-way
Euratom financial correction
mechanism on Horizon
Europe; new
participation fee to cover
admin costs.
THEMATIC COOPERATION
Health Security Arrangements that Cooperation on health
enable future security in line with third
  cooperation, particularly country precedent,
in light of C-19. Sought including international
balanced access to fora on prevention,
health security for a, detection and
expert to expert preparation in response
cooperation, including to established and
use of Early Warning emerging health threats.
Response System
(EWRS) where
necessary.
Cyber Security No ask, but open to Cyber dialogue and
cooperation where it is in commitment to
  our interests. cooperate in international
fora. Plus UK-CERT EU
cooperation + UK
participation in NIS
Cooperation Group + UK
participation in ENISA
Security of Precedented Security of EU asked for this to be a
Information Information Agreement protocol and part of the
Agreement based on international FTA
(SOIA) norms. Proposed a
standalone agreement Reciprocal guarantees
  (in line with precedent). for the handling /
protection classified
information.
+ Arrangements on
sensitive non-classified
information.
Asylum and Formal UK-EU Dialogue to tackle
MUTUAL COMPROMISE    
– UK participates in Union
programmes on a fair and
balanced set of terms.
   
MUTUAL COMPROMISE      
– package to enable
continued cooperation
including on Covid-19
response measures. UK
has ad-hoc access to
EWRS through designated
focal points (this builds on
the EU proposal and
provides a useful
mechanism for agreeing
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
(ECDC)
MUTUAL COMPROMISE      
– We didn’t initially want
formal arrangements, and
what we have agreed is
permissive and mutually
beneficial. 
Includes voluntary
participation with expert
committees and bodies
including.
MUTUAL COMPROMISE      
– We agreed the SOIA
would be a supplementary
agreement, rather than
rolled in to the TECA. It
takes account of our
domestic regime.
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 COOPERATION    

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
future.   

GOVERNANCE    

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
governance
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
supplementing
agreements on Civil
Nuclear or Security of
Information.

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
high.

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
proposals.

[i]
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.