Brexit: the Crown Dependencies Contents

Chapter 3: Brexit and the Crown Dependencies’ future relationship with the EU

The end of Protocol 3

31.Mr Quayle noted that the Crown Dependencies’ Protocol 3 relationship was dependent on the UK remaining a member of the EU.19 Our witnesses agreed that Protocol 3 was therefore destined to cease to exist along with the UK’s EU membership. Professor Alastair Sutton, of Brick Court Chambers, former European Adviser to the Crown Dependencies, and current Adviser to the Government of Bermuda, told us that “when we leave, the day the treaties cease to exist will be the day Protocol 3 ceases to exist simultaneously with all the other treaty arrangements. Therefore, from a purely legal point of view, running it on is not an option.”20 Susie Alegre, of Doughty Street Chambers, agreed: “The UK’s withdrawal from the EU will end the special relationship Crown Dependencies have with the EU under Protocol 3.”21 Mr Walker said that it was “difficult to envisage the circumstances in which the EU would sign up to a continuation of the Crown Dependencies’ EU status while the UK left.”22

The Crown Dependencies’ future relationship with the EU

32.The question therefore is what the Crown Dependencies’ future relationship with the EU will look like. Our witnesses identified several policy fields that were likely to be affected, and therefore needed to be taken into account in the Brexit negotiations.

Trade in goods

33.Senator Gorst told us that the structure of the Crown Dependencies’ economies at the point of UK accession meant that Jersey’s priority at the time was to take advantage of the Treaty’s provisions enabling the free movement of goods. He noted that agricultural industries were extremely important at that point.23 Although the Islands’ economic model has changed in the intervening period, the ability to trade in goods remains a priority for each of the Crown Dependencies.

34.Mr Quayle said that one of the Isle of Man’s two key concerns related to freedom of movement of goods.24 He told us that the impact of Brexit on agriculture and on animal welfare was key.25 He pointed to exports of Manx lightweight lambs to Greece, Italy and Germany, and king scallops and queenies26 to the EU, as examples of industries that could be affected by the post-Brexit imposition of tariffs: “If we come out of the European customs union we will have the additional cost of setting up our own borders.”27

35.Senator Gorst said that Jersey would wish to retain the ability to export fish into the EU (principally to France) free of tariffs. He noted that, while the industry was not quantitatively a large part of the economy, it was culturally important. If the UK were to leave the common external tariff, there would be implications for the Jersey fishing industry and other, smaller sectors of the economy.28

36.With regard to fisheries quotas, the Chief Ministers of Guernsey and Jersey also noted that this was one of the principal areas of disagreement between them.29 The Common Fisheries Policy does not apply to the Crown Dependencies as a matter of law. Jersey and the Isle of Man voluntarily abide by the EU quota regime by means of a Fisheries Management Agreement (FMA) with the UK. The Bailiwick of Guernsey signed an FMA in 2012, but a dispute arose with DEFRA as to whether this required the voluntary adoption of UK set quotas. This led to the suspension of the FMA—a situation which Guernsey is now working with the UK to resolve. Deputy St Pier noted that, taken as a whole, fishing would be one of the most complex areas of negotiation, in particular given the series of relationships or agreements between the UK and France that actually predated the EU.30

37.On the other hand, Senator Gorst pointed out that most agricultural products, notably Jersey Royal potatoes, were exported to the UK. Therefore, “the most important relationship that needs to be maintained at the end of this process is with the UK”, including “free movement of goods into the UK”.31

38.According to Deputy St Pier, the key challenge was making sure that the UK would not have a different status from the Crown Dependencies in terms of tariff barriers. If the UK were to rely on WTO rules for its trading relationship with the EU post-Brexit, then Guernsey and Jersey would need to seek WTO membership in their own right. He said that they were “seeking to deal with that issue sooner rather than later”. Senator Gorst said that “the simple solution would be to extend the UK’s membership of WTO, with the authority of our Parliament, to the Channel Islands”. Mr Quayle told us that the UK’s membership of the WTO had already been extended to cover the Isle of Man in 1997.32

39.Mr Quayle also pointed to the Isle of Man’s manufacturing industry, which makes landing gear for Boeing jets and ejector seats for many of the world’s air forces. He told us that these parts mainly went to the UK, but were then exported to the EU.33

40.Professor Sutton suggested that it would be possible for the UK “quite seamlessly … to add to its own negotiations of a free trade area a protocol similar in scope to Article 1 of Protocol 3 anyway, which would continue … the trade in goods, i.e. horticultural, agricultural and even manufacturing if possible.”34

Financial services

41.The biggest transformation in the economies of the Crown Dependencies since UK accession has been the development of significant financial services sectors.35

42.The Channel Islands Brussels Office notes that:

“Financial services firms are major employers in the Islands, with over a quarter of the workforce (19,000 jobs) employed in the sector. As major well-regulated financial centres, both Guernsey and Jersey are significant net providers of liquidity and investment funds to the EU economy. Protocol 3 does not cover services, so the Channel Islands are treated as third countries for the purposes of EU financial services legislation.”36

43.Senator Gorst said that the Government of Jersey estimated that it was “a conduit of something like £188 billion into Europe … equivalent to about 88,000 jobs”.37 Deputy St Pier pointed to the fact that the Channel Islands “trade a number of financial services into the EU, whether funds or insurance”.38

44.Both Senator Gorst and Deputy St Pier were confident that it would be possible for Jersey and Guernsey to continue with the terms of their existing third country relationship with the EU post-Brexit, and that, consequently, concerns over a financial services ‘cliff edge’, and over relocation, did not have the same resonance as for the City of London.39

45.Senator Gorst noted that Jersey had had to make decisions for a number of years about whether it was economically beneficial to deliver equivalence40 to EU standards in various markets, for instance in relation to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II. In some cases, indeed, it had not been appropriate for Jersey to seek equivalence, because of its financial services models. He also noted a “layer of complexity about whether equivalence is a technical process, or a technical process with a political overlay”. While it was possible to navigate technical requirements, the political process created more uncertainties. He also noted that not every directive included equivalence provisions.41

46.Deputy St Pier said that the challenge was “to what extent the rules of the game around equivalence change because the EU is now dealing with a larger third country—namely, the UK”. While he was confident that existing equivalence provisions could be maintained, he conceded that this might make obtaining equivalence more difficult in connection to any future EU Directives.42 Professor Sutton said that legally there was no reason why existing equivalence arrangements could not be maintained, but added that it was not clear whether equivalence had been granted to the Crown Dependencies (and the Overseas Territories) because of their links to the UK as a Member State. In his view, the EU would only grant equivalence “because it is in the EU’s interest to permit the free flow of capital from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man into EU markets. I am afraid there are some grey zones where we do not quite know what the outcome will be. It is in the lap of the gods.”43

47.Professor Bates said that the Crown Dependencies might be forced to choose between equivalence with the UK and with the EU. This would require “a bit of political as well as legal sophistication—probably more political than legal sophistication. Once you have decided what you are going to do, it is fairly easy to achieve the equivalence.”44

48.Senator Gorst stressed the importance in relation to financial services provision of “navigating together with the City [of London] because of our symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship with the UK economy”.45 He added that “the most important equivalent standards for us to follow are the UK’s, because the UK is our main trading partner as well as our historical constitutional loyalty”. He also noted that there was already some divergence between EU standards and international standards emanating from the IMF and the OECD. He stressed that Jersey was:

“Absolutely committed to the international standards coming out of the international standard-setting bodies where there is appropriate peer review … There will be a challenge, but it will be a challenge that we will share and navigate with the United Kingdom as they become third countries about that divergence of standards between the EU standards and those of the rest of the world.”46

49.Deputy St Pier agreed that “the most significant trade relationship in financial services remains with the United Kingdom, but the rest of the European Union is a significant trading bloc for us. Maintaining our current level of access is a key objective.”47 He noted:

“As part of being a responsible financial services jurisdiction, we are committed to meeting international standards, which continually evolve … Our funds industry in particular funnels around £25 billion of inward investment into the UK and £50 billion into the EU. Around £35 billion of Guernsey funds are invested in various UK infrastructure assets. In summary, while Guernsey is not part of the United Kingdom or of the European Union, we place huge value on all those relationships, our ability to move freely and our access to markets. Our objective through this process is to try to preserve as much of that as we possibly can.”48

50.Mr Quayle said that, while the Isle of Man shared the concerns of the Channel Islands, it was not as exposed in respect of financial services. It undertook more worldwide investments than with the EU, and diversification into e-business and manufacturing had reduced its exposure in financial services.49

51.Nevertheless, Professor Bates noted that e-gaming represented about 8% of the Isle of Man’s GDP, and the EU was beginning to take serious steps towards regulating e-gaming: “If we visit a situation where e-gaming is not part of any Brexit agreement, you then have quite a difficult situation for the Isle of Man.”50 More broadly, he stated that “it is almost inevitable that there will be significant areas of financial services affected in the Crown Dependencies if there is a downturn in the City of London. It will be exacerbated should there be a significant move of institutions or part of institutions elsewhere in the EU”.51

52.Professor Sutton was concerned about the implications of Brexit for the Crown Dependencies’ financial sectors. He argued that the international climate had changed as a result of the financial crisis, and that international action in the G20, the OECD, the IMF and the EU presented a challenge to the Crown Dependencies’ financial services model, such that “the historic advantages over the last 30 years of jurisdictions such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man to attract investment by virtue of advantageous taxes or different types of regulation are probably going to diminish anyway.” He argued that the difference between UK policy in financial services and taxation and that in the Crown Dependencies made it difficult for the UK to represent the Crown Dependencies in international fora (see Chapter 4).52

53.Professor Sutton said that the EU was undertaking a:

“so-called blacklisting process where serious damage to the economies of Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man … could be done if the EU blacklist these Territories despite the fact that they have ticked all the boxes internationally in the OECD for compliance with tax, anti-money laundering legislation and financial regulation”.53

He saw this as part of the European Union’s drive “to deal with what they call ‘low, no or zero tax jurisdictions’.”54 He observed that, by the end of 2017, ECOFIN55 would have to decide which countries to blacklist, and which sanctions to apply: “If the United Kingdom is not there to fight our corner in ECOFIN, of course it will be more difficult.”56

54.Professor Sutton cited the pressure that was brought to bear on the Crown Dependencies to accept the disciplines of the Tax on Savings Directive,57 which resulted in them negotiating agreements with each EU Member State for the exchange of information under the Directive. Further initiatives had followed:

“The next step was the code of conduct on harmful business taxation, which was extended extraterritorially to [the Islands] despite the provisions of Protocol 3. They also submitted their corporate tax law to the Code of Conduct Group in Brussels, and their corporate tax legislation, after some discussion, was approved by Brussels by the Code of Conduct Group. That was a unique occasion when a representative of Jersey was allowed into the room to sit next to the British Treasury to explain Jersey’s zero-ten corporate tax legislation.”58

Case study: the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD)

55.The current debate over the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) illustrates in microcosm the concerns over the potential impact of Brexit on the Crown Dependencies’ financial sectors. Both the Chief Ministers of Guernsey and Jersey noted that the Crown Dependencies’ attempts to attain passporting rights under the AIFMD had already become politicised after the referendum.59 Senator Gorst explained that the Channel Islands had met the technical requirements that ESMA60 had set out in order to issue a passport. However, in order to obtain a passport, a Member State of reference was required, which meant that, “while the UK is leaving, the requirement for member state of reference and the issuing of the passport could easily acquire a political overlay”.61

56.Professor Bates noted that ESMA had given an opinion in July 2016,

“saying that there was no problem with Guernsey or Jersey but they did not extend that to the Isle of Man because there was insufficient information available to them. Since then, post the prospect of Brexit, the Commission has put all those initiatives on hold for all three Crown Dependencies.”

There was a feeling that the regime of passports might replace equivalence, which “would make life even more difficult for the Crown Dependencies”.62

57.Mr Walker said that the AIFMD had been discussed at his formal meetings with the Chief Ministers of the Crown Dependencies, and although Treasury Ministers had not attended those meetings, “we are taking a conversation forward with the Treasury and other departments to ensure that their views are understood and reflected”. The UK would continue to engage on equivalence discussions while it remained a Member State, although he did not give any reassurance over how the issue would be resolved.63

A bilateral financial services agreement?

58.Professor Sutton was fearful that, “for the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories, life after Brexit will be more difficult without the UK having a seat at the EU table and being able to shape and drive EU policy”.64 Professor Le Sueur agreed that “life after Brexit is almost certainly going to be more difficult and that the Islands are going to be in a more vulnerable position than they are now”.65

59.Professor Sutton said that the Crown Dependencies therefore had three options: to align themselves with the UK in seeking a free trade agreement in services, in effect saying, “We will accept whatever you can negotiate in terms of market access”; to ask the UK Government to negotiate a separate agreement in their name, which he considered possible but “extremely difficult”; or to seek to be entrusted to undertake their own negotiations with the EU. He thought that, given the current political tendency in Brussels to seek a level playing field across the EU’s periphery, “the idea of doing sui generis ad hoc deals with small non-sovereigns is very difficult to imagine, and I wonder whether the political will would be there”.66 Yet he hesitated about maintaining the status quo of alignment with the UK, arguing that some form of bilateral agreement would provide greater legal certainty.67

60.Professor Bates thought that a bilateral agreement on financial services was a “non-starter”:

“I do not think the United Kingdom Government are going to let the Crown Dependencies loose to negotiate their own financial services agreement … I cannot see the EU being interested in doing it anyway.”68

61.Professor Le Sueur commented:

“The stability of the islands, in terms of their position as international finance centres, is really built on changing as little as possible and maintaining the status quo. They have built up their industries on the basis of being third countries so far as financial services are concerned, and I think that as little change as possible is clearly the preferred way. I can understand the political reasons for that.”69

We return to this issue in Chapter 4.

The rights of EU citizens to reside and work in the Crown Dependencies

62.Subject to the provisions in Protocol 3 that prohibit discrimination between EU Member States (including the UK), the Crown Dependencies can, and do, operate different policies with regard to the rights of EU citizens to take up employment. Senator Gorst explained that the Crown Dependencies:

“Benefit—if I may use that word—from the free movement of people who come into the United Kingdom; because of the common travel area, they can come over to our Islands. Each of us puts a layer of legislation over that, which acts as a control, but it acts in a non-discriminatory manner … The way in which we devise and operate that control is where there are slight differences.”70

63.The Isle of Man currently operates a work permit system, where EU nationals (including UK nationals) have restricted access to the labour market.71 Jersey does not have a work permit system, although its employers are required to apply for a work licence if they wish to employ someone without residential qualifications. Within the Bailiwick of Guernsey, while Guernsey does not operate a work permit regime, Alderney applies an employment permit regime on EU nationals, and Sark has a similar provision on the statute book, although it is not in force.

64.The Isle of Man Government noted that, under Protocol 3, it had several obligations, including to treat all persons from the European Union in the same way, including people from countries that joined the EU after Protocol 3 was agreed. EU nationals therefore have the right of free movement into the Isle of Man and are not subject to immigration controls. Similarly Isle of Man residents have the right of free movement across the EU, and do not need visas to enter EU countries. Protocol 3 does not prevent the Isle of Man operating a work permit system, or limiting services or benefits, provided this applies equally to people from all EU countries—including from the UK.72

65.Howard Quayle told us that there were approximately 4,000 non-British EU nationals living in the Isle of Man.73 He said that maintaining as much as possible the current freedom of movement of people was one of the Isle of Man’s primary concerns, in large part because of the island’s ageing population:

“In the next 20 years there will be a 53% increase in people over the age of 65, with only a 2% to 3% increase in the working population. As an economy, we are looking to grow the working population on the Isle of Man to get over that hurdle … we have an unemployment rate of 1.2%, which is dangerously low. We really need to grow our 20 to 40 year-old skilled workforce … Losing the freedom of movement of people we rely on from the European Union, as well as the United Kingdom, would be a major concern.”74

66.Professor Bates concurred, noting that the Isle of Man’s death rate exceeded its birth rate. He pointed out that there would be particular difficulties for the Island’s health service and financial services sector. Although the Isle of Man’s work permit system, which currently requires applicants to be filling a job for which there is no available local person, could be revised to encourage immigration, he conceded that “it would be quite a sensitive issue in domestic Manx politics to broaden the ability of people coming freely to work in the Isle of Man”.75

67.With regard to the Channel Islands, Professor Le Sueur noted that Alderney also had a rapidly declining population. Jersey, by contrast, was one of the most densely populated places in the world, with a rapidly rising population. In 2015 there was net inward migration of 1,500 out of a total population of 100,000. The vast majority were British people moving from the UK. The next largest populations were people born in Portugal (7% of the population) and in Poland (3% of the population). Although these figures were “quantitatively much less important”, he noted that they were of “huge importance in relation to the hospitality and agricultural sector”.76

68.Senator Gorst told us that Jersey, out of its total population of approximately 100,000, had about 15,000 non-British EU nationals:

“We are very mindful of their place in the Channel Islands going forward and throughout this process. We support the work of the Prime Minister in, if at all possible, getting a resolution to that earlier rather than later. They are important members of our community and it is important that they are dealt with fairly so that they continue to feel welcomed and valued.”77

Although this issue did not arise in the evidence we received from Deputy St Pier, we note that in a recent speech, he stated that Guernsey also wished to guarantee the rights of EU citizens currently residing there.78

Free movement and the Common Travel Area

69.We examined the future of the Common Travel Area at length in our recent report on Brexit: UK-Irish relations.79 While the creation of an EU external border will not arise in the case of the Crown Dependencies, our witnesses were alive to the implications for the CTA. For instance, Professor Sutton suggested that allowing the Crown Dependencies to negotiate their own arrangements on the free movement of EU citizens might not be compatible with continuation of the CTA, although “in legal theory, a solution would be possible”.80 Professor Bates did not think that the Crown Dependencies would want to negotiate something that deprived their citizens of their ability to travel freely to the UK.81

70.Deputy St Pier observed:

“The free movement of people between the Islands and the UK is a long-standing constitutional position, derived from successive royal charters. The Common Travel Area is just a modern manifestation of how that is delivered, so for us it would become a significant constitutional issue if that free movement of people between the islands and UK did not continue. In other words, whatever replaces the CTA would need to recognise that historic constitutional relationship and those historic charters that give those rights for our people to move freely between the Islands and the UK.”82

71.Mr Walker stressed the UK Government’s commitment to maintaining the Common Travel Area, “recognising the special importance of that to people in their everyday lives—particularly in the Crown Dependencies”. He acknowledged the concerns that the Crown Dependencies had raised about the interests of their economies in continuing to attract key talent, and “also the fact that they take a slightly differentiated approach to the UK, particularly on settlement rights”. The Minister stressed that the Crown Dependencies’ legislatures were able to make their own legislation on migration and the right to work and live on the islands, and therefore to take a slightly different approach to the UK, “so long as they maintain the common travel area and freedom of movement within that”. He said that the UK Government was working closely with them, and noted that Home Office officials had attended formal meetings with the Crown Dependencies to answer questions.83

Other issues

Data protection

72.Susie Alegre noted that while the Crown Dependencies were not in the EU, they had significant service industries that relied on their ability to trade internationally. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), agreed earlier this year, significantly strengthens data protection for people in the EU. Ms Alegre pointed out that the territorial scope of the Regulation meant that, if the Crown Dependencies wished to continue to provide goods and services to the EU, they would need to conform to the GDPR, even if the UK were to depart from EU standards of data protection. This would require a careful and ongoing assessment of the impact of UK legal developments on the data protection regimes of the Crown Dependencies.84

73.Deputy St Pier told us that Guernsey and Jersey were committed to adopting the new General Data Protection Regulations from 2018, and were working together to achieve equivalence.85 Senator Gorst acknowledged that this issue would need to be considered carefully in the context of the Brexit negotiations,86 and Professor Sutton cited it as an area of potential uncertainty: “If you are going to co-operate on financial services and you cannot exchange data because people do not trust your data protection rules, that would be a serious disadvantage.”87

Transport and communications

74.Senator Gorst raised the issues of air security and transport.88 He noted that “our economies are broad and our relationship with Europe is broad and deep. Things like air and shipping links are important to us.”89 The Government of Jersey has pointed out that flight operators need to meet relevant EU standards in order to operate to EU destinations, and therefore need to know if the UK still intends to participate in the European Single Sky. For the purposes of the EU’s Single European Sky Regulations, Jersey airspace is (for reasons of geography) part of the functional airspace block with France (and the airspace controlled by Jersey sits under airspace administered by France).90 Mr Walker agreed that transport and communications were key issues.91

Energy and environment

75.Senator Gorst noted that there would be implications of Brexit for the Crown Dependencies’ future energy supply.92 He noted that “in Jersey and Guernsey we buy all our electricity from EDF in France. Energy, and its supply into the future, is important.”93

76.With regard to the environment, Susie Alegre noted:

“Much of the UK’s environmental law is based on EU law. When the UK leaves the EU, there is a risk that the legislative frameworks and environmental protections applicable in the UK will be weakened. The Crown Dependencies are geographically part of the British Isles sharing seas with the UK. The environment is important for island communities that can be vulnerable to climate change and environmental degradation—the Isle of Man became the first whole jurisdiction to be awarded UNESCO Biosphere Reserve status in 2016. Reductions in environmental protection in the UK that affect air and water quality, for example could have a serious detrimental effect on Crown Dependencies and on the health, well-being, and livelihoods of their residents. It is difficult to predict what changes will occur over time and how environmental law will be affected.”94

77.The implications of Brexit for future UK environment policy were explored in our recent report on Brexit: environment and climate change.95 We endorse Ms Alegre’s observation that any change in UK environmental standards, and any divergence from EU environmental standards, could have a substantial impact upon the Crown Dependencies.

The legislative impact on the Crown Dependencies

78.We asked whether the Crown Dependencies would be required to prepare their own equivalents of what the UK Government has called the ‘Great Repeal Bill’. Senator Gorst told us that the Government of Jersey was developing a draft bill, and that Jersey’s law officers were working with UK Government law officers to ensure that “we have covered everything appropriately. I think there is an acceptance, certainly in Jersey, that it might be that some things fall through the net and we have to come back and deal with them, but I do not think that is an insurmountable issue.”96

79.Mr Quayle said that the Isle of Man Government had not yet specified the issues that would need to be dealt with in legislation, although he predicted that the Isle of Man’s customs and excise agreement with the UK (which provides for VAT and other revenues to be shared) would need to be looked at closely, as would policy areas including agriculture and animal welfare.97

80.Deputy St Pier said that the Government of Guernsey had identified the necessity for a bill, but the quantity of legislation required was considerably less than that needed for the UK.98

81.Professor Le Sueur identified four categories of law that would need to be examined:

82.Professor Bates identified Isle of Man company law as an example of legislation that largely followed UK company law, which in turn transposed EU company law Directives.100

83.Professor Sutton said:

“It is the same for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as it is for the United Kingdom. If we and they want continued access to EU markets, experience shows that you have to pretty much align your legislation on what is in force in the EU. If it is trade in goods under Protocol 3, the legislation that is now in force that allows free trade in goods with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands will have to stay. If financial services is where we want access, we will have to replicate, for example, the AIFMD directive or the insurance directive. I do not see a great deal of scope for widespread repeals of legislation if the aim is to preserve access.”

He added that legislation would be needed subsequently to ensure that, where necessary, the Crown Dependencies stayed in line with future EU legislative developments.101

84.Deputy St Pier said that preparations for the UK ‘Great Repeal Bill’ and the parallel legislation in the Crown Dependencies demonstrated the requirement for “a close working relationship between the Crown Dependencies and Her Majesty’s Government on exactly these sorts of issues so that nothing falls between the cracks.”102 The Isle of Man Government confirmed that the Crown Dependencies had had the opportunity to meet UK officials working on the Great Repeal Bill.103

85.Mr Walker stressed that it was not the Government’s responsibility to legislate for the Crown Dependencies, but confirmed that officials would be available to provide support to the Crown Dependencies both in drafting their own legislation, and in explaining the process being undertaken in relation to the Great Repeal Bill, in order to help the Crown Dependencies look to their own legislative requirements.104

21 Written evidence from Susie Alegre (CDP0002)

26 Isle of Man queen scallops.

30 European Union Committee, Brexit: fisheries (8th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 78)

35 Q 13 (Professor Alastair Sutton)

36 Channel Islands Brussels Office, The Channel Islands and the European Union (21 March 2016): [accessed 9 March 2017]

40 For a detailed analysis of equivalence, see European Union Committee, Brexit: financial services (9th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 81)

42 Ibid.

55 The Economic and Financial Affairs Council.

57 Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments (OJ L 157/38, 26 June 2003) which was later repealed by Council Directive (EU) 2015/2060 of 10 November 2015 repealing Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments (OJ L 301/1, 18 November 2015)

60 The European Securities and Markets Authority.

61 Q 9; For a detailed analysis of passporting, see European Union Committee, Brexit: financial services (9th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 81)

71 Supplementary written evidence from Isle of Man Government (CDP0003, CDP0004)

72 Supplementary written evidence from Isle of Man Government (CDP0004)

78 Government of Guernsey, Statement from Deputy Gavin St Pier, President of the Committee for Policy and Resource, Triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union in respect of Protocol 3 (8 March 2017): [accessed 15 March 2017]

79 European Union Committee, Brexit: UK-Irish relations (6th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 76)

84 Written evidence from Susie Alegre (CDP0002)

94 Written evidence from Susie Alegre (CDP0002)

95 European Union Committee, Brexit: environment and climate change (12th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 109)

98 Ibid.

100 Ibid.

103 Supplementary written evidence from Isle of Man Government (CDP0003)

© Parliamentary copyright 2017