The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the UK and the EU came into force on the 1st January 2021. This Briefing Paper considers the governance, subsidies and the level playing field provisions. The analysis reveals that much of the area lies outside the normal dispute settlement procedure and in some cases bespoke procedures replace or supplement it.  There are some innovative clauses concerning procedures to deal with imbalances arising from future labour and environmental policies, and the potential for review of the balance of the entire trade heading,  but these are quite unknown quantities and have the capacity to create perpetual wrangling and bad feeling between the UK and the EU. Read Briefing Paper 54: TAKING STOCK OF THE UK-EU TRADE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT: GOVERNANCE, STATE SUBSIDIES AND THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD 

State aid is a delicate issue in the current EU-UK trade negotiations. Whilst the EU is seeking dynamic alignment of any set of future UK State aid rules with the EU rules to maintain a ‘Level Playing Field’ (LPF) in areas relating to access to the Internal Market, the UK takes the stance that it would introduce its own regime of subsidy control. The UK prefers to adopt a more relaxed process for international trade based upon the rules in the WTO’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) but relying on WTO rules would not create a robust domestic system of state aid control. To maintain a close trade relationship with the EU, the UK must manoeuvre into a position where it gives effect to a State aid regime equivalent to that maintained by the EU, with an effective and robust independent enforcement process, but the UK has taken a different view. The reaction of the UK Government to the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the need for transparency in the granting of subsidies as well as accountability in procurement and yet the current situation is very opaque. Read Briefing Paper 42: STATE AID: NOT ONLY ABOUT TRADE

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms have been globally criticised as out-dated and inappropriate fora for the settlement of disputes involving States. Attempted reform is underway at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III, at which the EU is a key player. The role of the EU as a significant moderniser of trade agreements will have implications for the UK in negotiating any future trade deals with the EU. For example, the consequences of the recent Opinion 1/17 on the legality of a new form of court system to handle investor-state disputes in the EU-Canada Agreement (CETA) are significant in analysing how the CJEU was persuaded to reach the conclusion that new judicial fora in international Treaties may be compatible with EU law. The litigation around the modern trade agreements of the EU is a warning signal that conducting trade agreements from scratch with the EU is not painless, with ratification potentially being very prolonged when there are challenges to the agreement at the national and EU level. Read Briefing Paper 30 – Opinion 1/17: Towards A Modern EU Approach to Investor-State Dispute Settlement