Blog Post

Brexit and its potential impact on international data transfers

If the UK exits the EU and the EEA, it will have to go to considerable lengths to enable continued data transfers from the EU. Without an agreement on data transfers and data protection, business in the UK and the EU will be disrupted.

By: and Date: August 4, 2016 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

Data transfers among different jurisdictions can help multinational enterprises to maximise the benefits generated from data, and to harmonise their operations around the globe.

But the Brexit referendum could have a serious impact on data transfers between EU and UK, if the UK indeed exits the EU. To avoid disrupting businesses that operate in both the UK and the EU, post-Brexit agreements in regard to data transfers and data protection would be needed . The Privacy Shield between the EU and the US may provide an example to be followed between the EU and the UK.

To better understand the potential impact of Brexit on firms, consider a multinational business with its headquarters in London, and subsidiaries in Paris, Frankfurt, and other European capitals. The headquarters in London would usually have personnel management responsibilities for the employees located on the Continent. This would be possible only if personnel records for those employees can be freely shared between the company’s locations. In a post-Brexit world, data transfers such as these might become subject to a different regulatory regime, affecting the operations of the firm.

The impact of Brexit could be even greater for banks headquartered in London, and digital platforms that require data transfers from their employees and their clients located in the EU.

The impact of Brexit on the legal regime

The exact impacts of Brexit depend on many factors, including the form of association that the UK and the EU establish with one another going forward; however, the broad outlines of the problem can already be inferred. There are four main possibilities:

  1. The UK may somehow continue to be an EU Member State, in spite of the 23 June vote.
  2. The UK may apply for and be granted membership in the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
  3. The UK and the EU may enact wide-ranging bilateral agreements, as is the case with Switzerland.
  4. The UK may have few or no agreements with the EU, as is the case with most other countries throughout the world.

In all four cases, the newly enacted General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) would govern data transfers from the EU to the UK. The GDPR takes effect from 25 May 2018 (repealing the previous EU privacy framework, Directive 95/46/EC), when the UK will probably still be an EU Member State.

In the first two instances (call them collectively the EU/EEA scenario), one would expect little or nothing to change, beyond the change from the old privacy framework to the new in 2018. Whether the UK is a member of the EU or the EEA, it would be required to fully implement the GDPR (in the absence of a specific agreement to the contrary). Data transfers between the EU and the UK would presumably not be impacted.

The EU/EEA scenario has its merits, but it seems unlikely, since either EU or EEA membership would oblige the UK to continue to adhere to nearly all EU regulations. The British public would likely view either option as a repudiation of the results of the 23 June referendum.

It is more likely that the UK will instead become fully independent of the EU and EEA, but possibly subject to bilateral agreements (call it the go it alone scenario). This corresponds to the third and fourth possible cases in the numbered list that appeared earlier.

In all instances, the potential irritant is the electronic surveillance that the UK government conducts in the interest of national security. Post-Snowden, it is widely believed that the UK intelligence service GCHQ participates in mass surveillance that is as widespread and as indiscriminate as that in the US, and moreover that GCHQ freely shares this intelligence with the Americans.

Side note: As the ECJ’s press release notes, “United States public authorities are not themselves subject to [the safe harbour agreement]. Furthermore, national security, public interest and law enforcement requirements of the United States prevail over the safe harbour scheme, so that United States undertakings are bound to disregard, without limitation, the protective rules laid down by that scheme where they conflict with such requirements. … ” An additional concern was that “the persons concerned had no administrative or judicial means of redress enabling, in particular, the data relating to them to be accessed and … rectified or erased.”

In a case brought by Austrian privacy activist Maximilian Schrems, a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on 6 October 2015 invalidated data transfers from the EU to the US under a Safe Harbour agreement that had existed since July 2000. The finding was that the personal data of EU users is not adequately protected when it is transferred to the US from the EU because US firms makes the data available to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), for which the Safe Harbour protections were either unavailable or irrelevant (see Marcus & Petropoulos 2016). The EU-US Privacy Shield agreement that has just come into effect addresses these concerns by providing stronger safeguards.

If the UK were to remain an EU/EEA member, data transfers to and from the EU would be governed by Article 23 of the GDPR, which permits Member States to take liberties with data protection and data transfers when doing so “respects the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms and is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard … national security”. It is debatable whether the widespread surveillance in the UK meets this criterion, but as it is a fairly soft criterion it is unlikely to be successfully challenged.

Under the go it alone scenario, the UK would become a third country relative to the GDPR, and transfers of personal data would instead be governed by Articles 45-49 of the GDPR. Our assessment is that the UK will have to go to considerable lengths to enable continued data transfers from the EU.

Article 45 is consistent with the Schrems Decision, but it establishes a much higher threshold for transfers of personal data. In order to establish an adequacy decision (the GDPR equivalent of Safe Harbour), the European Commission would be obliged to take account of “the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, relevant legislation, both general and sectoral, including concerning public security, defence, national security and criminal law and the access of public authorities to personal data”. In light of GCHQ activities, the UK would be unlikely to get a free ride. It is highly probable that the UK would be obliged to enter into an agreement very similar to the Privacy Shield that was just agreed between the EU and the United States.

Enacting an agreement similar to Privacy Shield would be painful for the UK politically. Moreover, the negotiations to arrive at Privacy Shield were intensive, complex and time-consuming, and the resultant agreement may still be vulnerable to legal challenges.

If no adequacy decision is put in place, some firms might try to circumvent the lack by instead invoking private contract provisions under Article 46 of the GDPR. Since Article 46 largely ignores the Schrems decision, we assume that any such agreements are unlikely to survive judicial appeal to the ECJ, unless provisions similar to those of Privacy Shield are somehow put in place between the UK government and the EU.

Within a corporate group, data transfers may be possible using either the rules of Article 47 of the GDPR, or by obtaining explicit consent to the proposed data transfer from the individual concerned (for example, from the employee).

Other data transfer implications

Under the go it alone scenario, the UK would no longer be subject to EU privacy law, and would need to craft its own. Whether data transfers from the UK might be restricted by the new UK privacy law remains to be seen.

The UK would no longer be a party to the data transfer provisions of Privacy Shield, and would have to negotiate new arrangements with the US, assuming that they are concerned about maintaining data privacy. Likewise, they would no longer be a party to EU data transfer agreements with other third countries, such as Switzerland.

In regard to data transfers to and from the EU and to other countries as well, as in many other areas, the UK is entering a period of considerable uncertainty and complexity.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Brexit banking exodus creates a dilemma for Dublin

Irish consumers’ interests may not coincide with the needs of banks relocating here.

By: Rebecca Christie Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 10, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Where Brexit goes, the law shall follow

How the financial industry and the law firms that support it are preparing for what comes next

By: Rebecca Christie Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 25, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage: The EU financial services landscape after Brexit

Bruegel fellows Rebecca Christie and Nicolas Véron discuss how the map of the EU's financial services industry has begun to change, and how it might eventually settle.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: April 30, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The emerging new geography of financial centers in Europe

What shape is the new financial continent of Europe?

Speakers: Rebecca Christie, Valerie Herzberg, Nicolas Véron and William Wright Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 29, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Breaking up big companies and market power concentration

Senator Elizabeth Warren proposes the break-up of big tech companies. A report for the UK government presents another approach for regulating the digital economy. And IMF research serves as a reminder that concentration of market power extends beyond digital. This blog reviews the debate.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: April 29, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director’s Cut: How to make Industry 4.0 work for Europe

Bruegel director Guntram Wolff talks to Padmashree Gehl Sampath, a Berkman Klein fellow at Harvard University, on the consequences of ‘new manufacturing’ for European industrial policymaking.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: April 2, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Brexit: When in doubt, slow down

Uncertainty over Brexit remains high despite looming deadlines. Here, the authors argue that the UK should take the necessary steps to make time to build consensus around the final shape of Brexit, and that the UK population should be consulted.

By: Maria Demertzis and Nicola Viegi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 29, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The shadow of Brexit: Guessing the economic damage to the UK

Under a set of assumptions, this post concludes that UK real income and investment would have been 4% and 6% larger respectively had it not been for the shock of the Brexit referendum result. With somewhat audacious assumptions, the damages already incurred can be scaled up to guess the negative macroeconomic consequence of each of the three possible Brexit outcomes: no-deal, deal or no Brexit.

By: Francesco Papadia Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 21, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The EU needs a Brexit endgame

Britain and the EU must try to preserve the longstanding economic, political, and security links and, despite the last 31 months spent arguing over Brexit, they should try to follow a new path toward convergence.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 31, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

What does a possible no-deal Brexit mean?

With Brexit getting closer, it is still extremely difficult to predict which one of the possible outcomes will materialise. Guntram Wolff examines what exactly it would mean for the UK to 'crash out' of the EU, for both parties.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: The economics of no-deal Brexit

Bruegel director Guntram Wolff is joined by senior fellow Zsolt Darvas to rake through the possibilities and probabilities inherent in a no-deal Brexit scenario, covering trade, the Irish border, citizens' rights and the EU budget.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 16, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

What 2019 could bring: A look inside the crystal ball

Economic performance prospects in Europe, the US and Asia in 2019. We start off by reviewing commentaries and predictions about the euro zone, which many commentators expect to perform below potential as uncertainties continue to dampen a still robust recovery.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Load more posts