Re: Brussels opposes UK entry to the Lugano Convention legal pact
My thoughts are that the UK joining the Lugano Convention is to avoid the unnecessary updating of contracts on both sides to put which judiciary any dispute would be resolved by, instead of just referencing and leveraging the Lugano Convention.
There are millions of contracts which are in place between between the 27+ EFTA and the UK. When they were written they would have used the Lugano convention to describe cross border disputes and judiciaries (the whole point of a convention) but now we have left the Lugano Convention these contracts will all need to be updated to put the UK the as the judiciary for disputes (contracts originated on our side), and similarly the 27 will have to update their contracts to be the jurisdiction for contracts on their side (the Lugano Convention only applies between states who the Convention applies to ....).
An easy fix to resolve the massive amount of updates needed to the judiciary for all these existing contracts, is to allow the UK to be included as a Lugano state and continue to use the convention so then the contracts can stay as they are without re-wording them and costing a load of money in legal fees for doing the updates.
Otherwise there needs to be an overarching agreement that includes the UK as an "equivalent" Lugano state outside the Lugano convention or the 27 and the UK have a lot of needless document updates to do - this could be a viable alternative (if the idiots in Brussel see common sense - which I doubt), which could even be made be temporary until a existing contract expires or gets updated as part of a company's renewal process.
New contracts would declare which country is the judiciary for disputes anyway so this shouldn't be the problem, it's all the ones that existed before we left the Lugano Convention when we also left the EU.