UK and EU trade bodies press HM Treasury to extend post-Brexit equivalence regime for capital rules as financial services reset talks intensify
UK and European trade bodies representing financial institutions have formally urged HM Treasury to extend the post-Brexit equivalence regime — the framework under which overseas firms are permitted to operate in the UK when they comply with home-country capital and regulatory standards that the UK deems equivalent to its own rules. The equivalence framework is a critical piece of the post-Brexit financial services architecture. It allows, for example, EU-authorised firms to access UK markets without full UK authorisation, and vice versa for UK firms accessing certain EU markets. The existing rules governing this access are time-limited, and the trade bodies are pressing for extension before they lapse. The lobbying effort arrives as the UK-EU financial services relationship enters a new phase. Earlier this week, senior City figures and bodies including TheCityUK and UK Finance flagged that the EU's CRD VI (Capital Requirements Directive VI — the EU's updated bank capital rulebook) branching restrictions under Article 21c risk damaging cross-border lending flows, including financing for European defence rearmament. The Treasury equivalence extension push is a separate but complementary effort: both reflect the City's view that the current regulatory divergence trajectory is commercially costly and that the UK-EU financial services reset should prioritise practical market access over symbolic alignment. For law firms, the outcome of this lobbying — and any Treasury consultation or legislative response — will determine whether financial institution clients need to restructure their UK and EU operating models or can continue under the current equivalence-based access arrangements.
Why this matters
The equivalence regime extension request directly affects the operating model decisions of every major bank, insurer, and asset manager with both UK and EU operations. If the regime lapses without extension or replacement, firms face a binary choice: obtain full UK authorisation for EU-authorised entities (triggering regulatory capital, governance, and substance requirements) or restructure group entities to route UK business through differently domiciled vehicles. Both options generate substantial financial regulation, corporate restructuring, and regulatory advisory work. The 'why now' is the combination of approaching expiry dates on existing equivalence determinations and the wider UK-EU financial services reset negotiations — creating a window in which industry lobbying can influence Treasury policy before decisions crystallise. This story directly affects the financial regulatory and international practices of every major City firm.
On the Ground
A trainee supporting financial institution clients on equivalence-related work would assist with regulatory notification drafting — preparing submissions to HM Treasury or the FCA flagging the client's position on proposed rule changes. They would also prepare choice-of-law summaries setting out how the equivalence framework interacts with the firm's existing UK and EU authorisation structure.
Interview prep
Soundbite
Equivalence lapse forces every cross-border financial institution to choose between full UK authorisation and structural reorganisation — both are expensive advisory mandates.
Question you might get
“How does the UK's post-Brexit equivalence framework differ from EU passporting rights, and why does that distinction matter for a bank deciding where to locate its European hub?”
Full answer
UK and European trade bodies have formally urged HM Treasury to extend the post-Brexit equivalence regime that allows overseas firms to operate in the UK under home-country regulatory compliance. This matters because equivalence expiry without replacement or extension would force major banks and asset managers to fundamentally restructure their UK and EU operating models, generating large-scale financial regulation advisory mandates. The push is part of the broader UK-EU financial services reset, where the City is lobbying simultaneously against CRD VI branching restrictions and for preservation of the equivalence architecture. Law firms with strong financial regulation and cross-border banking practices are best positioned to advise on the structural consequences. The outcome will depend on Treasury's political calculus between regulatory sovereignty and market access — a tension that is unlikely to resolve quickly.
My notes
saved