In his recent state of the union address, president Obama said: ‘And tonight, I’m announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive transatlantic trade and investment partnership with the UK, because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.’ Except that he did not. Instead of the UK, he said ‘European Union’. It is not really imaginable that he would ever have announced a free trade agreement with the UK in his address, or that it would have supported millions of good-paying American jobs.

My exchange of geopolitical entities, EU for the UK, encapsulates the argument about the UK’s membership of the EU. We gain by being part of something with global clout. And now – with my Europhile comment out of the way, obligatory in this season of talk about an in-out referendum – I can concentrate on what I want to write about, which is the strong emotion that any future trade deal is likely to raise in we rational lawyers.

Free trade is like human rights, one of those items that everyone pontificates about when it relates to other countries, but where the discussion grows uncomfortable when we talk about its implementation at home. It is very easy to send letters complaining about the killing of lawyers abroad, but I remember when the discussion turned to the killing of lawyers in the UK – Pat Finucane or Rosemary Nelson, the Northern Irish solicitors killed in 1989 and 1999 respectively. Then we shifted uncomfortably in our chairs.

Similarly, we can all agree that open markets are a wonderful thing in other countries. It is also true that the UK’s own legal services market is remarkably open, one of the most open in the world. But, to turn to the forthcoming EU-US trade agreement and what it is likely to mean for solicitors, are we comfortable with satisfying what may turn out to be US demands? Of course, I do not know at this stage whether legal services will finally be included in the agreement, nor the demands of the US, nor the response of the EU (nor even of my own organisation which represents the bars and law societies at EU level, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe). So what follows is pure speculation.

I am not undermining future negotiations through speculation because American lawyers have made clear in the past what they want: access to similar free movement in Europe as European lawyers enjoy through the EU directives. They do not have this at present, not being EU citizens, and the European answer to date has been a clear ‘No’. In the UK, making the market freer in this way would revolve mainly around the area of reserved activities, and in particular court activities. Here are some of the questions which would arise. Would you care if American lawyers were able to appear in court in the UK (as EU lawyers are already permitted to do under the directives)? Would you care if American lawyers were able to travel freely around the EU plying their trade without being stopped at each border? What would be the point of EU membership if Americans had the same rights?

Often the answer depends on what the other side – in this case, the US – gives in return. The US federal government, which is presumably the authority undertaking the negotiation, does not regulate legal practice in the individual states. That is managed largely by the Supreme Court in each state, which will presumably not be party to the negotiations. So here are some more questions. Would you be prepared to give something away in a negotiation when the other side is unable to give anything away? Would you give it away on the basis that the other side will use its best endeavours to see it done, but without any guarantees? Does that stick in your throat?

Assuming that the negotiations gain traction, similar basic emotions will be raised on the American side. Will they be prepared to see European lawyers able to cross US state borders easily when they cannot do so themselves under their state-bound domestic system? Will they be happy to see lawyers from Ruritania’s (in their view) odd and inadequate system, not at all comparable to the high standards of the US, gain access freely to their markets? Believe me, these are primal patriotic concerns which grab and upset the most civilised of lawyers. I have seen reasonable people reduced to sulky children by the feelings raised.

So, do not think that the years ahead will be quiet, unemotional times. Trade talks stir up thoughts of national identity, national rights and national standards, where we are always the best. Prepare to wrap yourself in the EU flag.

Jonathan Goldsmith is secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, which represents about one million European lawyers through its member bars and law societies. He blogs weekly for the Gazette on European affairs