Interesting claim by @Lorand_Bartels that the UK may have "a good case" against the EU at the WTO if it *continues* to deny long-term equivalence recognition for financial services.
1/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/12/europes-war-equivalence-risks-violating-international-law/

It is true that "selective treatment of one state for political reasons breaches the non-discrimination principle of the WTO" and this applies to services as Article VII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) makes clear in paragraph 3.
2/

However, given that the EU-UK TCA contains declarations to negotiate a deal on financial services, the EU can surely argue that it is abiding by Article VII as it is "affording adequate opportunity" to reach an accord with the UK, as it is required by paragraph 2.
3/

Given that the EU is currently continuing to extend equivalence recognition (albeit on a monthy basis) and that declarations to reach a long-term agreement are set out, it is difficult to see how discrimination can be argued at present.
4/

Also mentioned in the article, is the example of Switzerland which "explored legal recourse under WTO law" but "stopped short of pulling the trigger" after it lost EU equivalence recognition for its financial sector in 2019.
5/

Given that the Swiss actually lost EU equivalence recognition, why did they not pursue the case when they surely had a much stronger claim of discrimination than the UK, which will find it hard to claim that any discrimination has taken place as nothing is lost yet?
6/