In addition to this option, the agreement could give the party alleging a breach of obligations the right to unilaterally take “appropriate remedies” until the dispute is resolved through arbitration if the joint committee is unable to resolve the issue. The agreement could include safeguards to protect the interests of the party accused of breaching its LPF obligations if they have adverse effects of unilateral interim measures taken by the other party and are subsequently found not at all responsible for an infringement. Commentators have suggested that some areas of equal competition may be less controversial than others. For example, at this stage, there is no indication that it will be difficult to reach agreement on the issues of taxation and limitation of anti-competitive behaviour by companies. This document provides an overview of the subject and the negotiations (Section 1) before examining the different areas of level playing field: rules on State aid, competition between companies and state-owned enterprises, taxation, labour standards, environmental protection, climate change, trade and sustainable development. The respective contexts and positions of the UK or the EU in each area are discussed. It also takes stock of different points of view on the possibilities of a “landing zone” of potential compromises in each area. These include a view on the UK`s potential to promote its own global trade interest through its deal with the EU. As far as Brexit is concerned, the “sides” are the UK and the EU (which represent their local businesses) and the levelling would be an agreement on a set of common rules and standards, so neither could undermine the other by ignoring areas such as workers` rights and environmental protection.

The most important and important difference is that the draft EU Treaty goes beyond the political declaration and carefully establishes dispute settlement procedures on obligations on equal conditions of competition, with detailed plans for sanctions and interim measures to enforce compliance. In stark contrast, the draft British treaty follows the broad outlines of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) – the free trade agreement between the EU and Canada. The EU insists that level playing field (LPF) provisions be included in the agreement, which would oblige the UK to maintain regulatory convergence in areas such as state aid, competition, social and environmental standards. However, the UK insists it will not be a regulator and government negotiators are also insisting on the UK`s regulatory autonomy. The respective positions appear divergent, but they can be reconciled with a single agreement that would require both the UK and the EU to meet common high standards in certain regulatory areas, but decisively, without both parties being required to comply with the same legislation. This would give the UK the freedom to write its own set of rules, while commitments can be underpinned by a robust dispute settlement mechanism that would give the EU27 confidence that acts on the UK side that undermine open and fair competition can be treated fairly. . . .