exists. As this essay previously established, CRD IV covers banking services, therefore, in the event of a loss of passporting rights, institutions that provide services such as deposit taking, lending and financing will suffer. Solvency II provides an equivalence regime for reinsurance but not direct insurance. Geoffrey Maddock and Alison Matthews article examining Solvency II proposes the argument that in any attempt to achieve equivalent status, the UK must keep its regime the same, if not very similar, to the existing regulations enshrined in Solvency II. It can be said, therefore, that a cogent theme is emerging that, even though one of the key messages of the Brexit campaign was that Brexit would enable the UK to take back control over its laws, the UK will have to adhere closely, if not exactly, with certain EU regulations if they hope to achieve third country equivalence. This is a key impact that Brexit will have on the UK financial services regime. Additionally, as it has been established, UCITS provides for no third country equivalence regime, a fact that may result in UK domiciled asset managers having to establish a branch in each and every EU country that they wish to conduct business it, a situation that is far from ideal. This brutally lays out the flaws in suggesting that the UK can simply rely on equivalence as a substitute for passporting in the post-Brexit world. Pursuant to this point, whilst nothing is certain, this essay proposes the notion that this will have two discernible impacts on the UK financial services legal regime. Firstly, in relation to regulatory regimes that currently allow third country equivalence, such as AIFMD and MiFIR , the UK will have to ensure that their domestic regulatory frameworks remain similar or identical to those in their EU equivalents and strive to evolve in line with EU developments. Secondly, in order for the UK to truly compensate for a loss in ‘passporting’, it is clear that it will have to negotiate and attempt to extend (‘enhance’) the provision of equivalence regimes in a bespoke arrangement. On the latter point, academics have suggested that an enhanced equivalent regime (“equivalence plus”) would go some way in counteracting the problem that equivalence has never covered the full spectrum of financial services and provide a more adequate replacement for ‘passporting’.