Author: Christopher Yukins

Britain’s historic vote to leave the European Union will have a profound impact on public procurement law, both in the European Union and around the world.  The impact may not be catastrophic — like Norway, the United Kingdom may choose to remain in the European Economic Area which would keep the UK in the single market and bind it to existing European procurement directives — but the indirect impact, in a diminished role for the British in European procurement policy, could prove quite serious.

As the Freshfields procurement law group (historically one of the leading groups in Europe) has noted, if the UK stayed within the European Economic Area, Britain would remain part of the single European market and European procurement rules would continue to apply to UK public procurement.  From the Freshfields page:

What if the UK leaves the EU, joins the European Free Trade Association and remained a member of the European Economic Area (EEA)? (the Norwegian option)

There would be no impact on current applicable public procurement law. Under the EEA Agreement, non-EU states that join the EEA still participate in the EU’s internal market by adopting all the relevant EU legislation, apart from that on fisheries and agriculture. This means that the EU’s public procurement law will continue to apply.

Should Britain not join the EEA, as senior London barrister Michael Bowsher QC has noted, in order to protect its own exports Britain might find itself forced to provide reciprocal access to its procurement markets, under the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) or otherwise.  Under these scenarios, Britain still would follow international best practices for open markets, but UK procurement law likely would follow a separate path — a less European path — of development.

The indirect impact of Brexit on global procurement policy also should not be underestimated.  Britain will have no direct say in writing the European Union’s procurement rules, which have played an increasingly important role in shaping global best practices over the past few decades.  Moreover, as Michael Bowsher points out, in important part because of British resistance the European Union has stopped short of adopting proposed barriers to other nations (such as China and the United States) that the EU accuses of protectionism; with Brexit, the British voice will be muted, and those EU procurement barriers may well rise.  That, in turn, will make it more important for the United States to conclude the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the EU, to reinforce U.S. access to European procurement markets.

Finally, Britain is home to many of the world’s brightest lawyers and academics in procurement law.  Their role in helping the European Union shape flexible, common-sense procurement rules focused on achieving best value will almost certainly be diminished, and that, one might argue, will be a loss for everyone.

Editor’s note:  On September 19, 2016, these Brexit developments will be discussed at our annual conference on transatlantic procurement at King’s College London; GWU Law School is a co-sponsor.  Attendance is free, and further information is available at http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/opening-transatlantic-procurement-markets-tickets-25739851589 .