The choice of CIOs according to French and Irish legislation after Brexit has clear advantages for companies. The main benefit could be seen as the ongoing framework for established and successful regulation of counterparties through settlements and directives of European jurisdictions. The most obvious change in the new agreements lies in the provisions of the applicable law, since these agreements are subject to French and Irish law respectively. The agreements contain very few derogations from the agreement on English law, but it could be argued that the Irish legal version would be the tastiest choice, with the fewest derogations or additions to the current English legal agreement. In addition, counterparties can continue to benefit from the fact that cases are brought before an English-speaking European court without their current draft contracts being significantly altered. Following its publication, ISDA has taken steps to support the use of ISDA Framework Agreements in France and Ireland, including the introduction of new legal opinions to confirm the applicability of the compensation and security provisions of French and Irish legislation of ISDA documentation. However, despite these measures, some EU market participants have been reluctant to derogate from its Irish and/or French law from the application of the English ISDA Framework Agreement, either in respect of new or previous agreements. French and Irish law were chosen to represent both civil and common law. These two legal frameworks also support the feasibility of ISDA protocols, which make it possible to modify several agreements between the parties in an efficient and scalable manner. In addition to the publication of the new framework agreements, ISDA has also updated the corresponding clearing notices.  drs-als.com/isda-issues-new-french-and-irish-law-master-agreements-just-because-they-can/ Although there are few objections to increased selection, there is no obvious reason to indicate that the new agreements are necessary. Recent negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement indicate that even after the hardest Brexit, EU counterparties will still be able to use the English courts and submit to their jurisdiction.
As was apparent from a previous intervention, judicial cooperation and recognition are unlikely to be significantly affected. The legal community is not famous for its zeal to accept change and innovation. Moreover, neither France nor Ireland have a case history regarding ISDA framework contracts, while the English legal agreement has been extensively tested, interpreted and clarified. London`s concentration of specialised legal infrastructure and knowledge is unlikely to recur in europe in the near future. The 2007 Lugano Convention („Lugano Convention”) applies between the EU, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. During the TIP, the Lugano Convention will continue to apply to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom. In its negotiating document entitled „Our approach to the Future Relationship with the EU”, the UNITED Kingdom stated that it intended to accede to the Lugano Convention as an independent party. If the United Kingdom accedes to the Lugano Convention, the issues of jurisdiction and enforcement would be resolved. Accession to the Lugano Convention must be approved by the existing candidate countries.
The UK government has announced that Iceland, Norway and Switzerland will support the UK`s accession. However, the UK`s accession requires the EU`s agreement and will be part of broader trade negotiations. The evolution of the new agreements does not imply a particular insight into the final form of Brexit. However, in ISDA`s undisputed view, Brexit means „potentially more costs, more uncertainty and more bureaucracy”. The use of the new agreements eliminates possible issues concerning the recognition of English law, the application of LEGISLATION at EU level and the settlement of disputes. Both agreements have been designed to be used in conjunction with other existing ISDA documents. . .