Yesterday, Mr Barnier left the London conference centre, where the negotiations are taking place, and said the talks were an “ongoing process” and advised those who are learning about progress to be patient. He later tweeted the photo (above) of himself while looking at some playgrounds in Regent`s Park, accompanied by the message: “A short pause for intense negotiations between the EU and the UK in London. In search of the same land… In the concept of Brexit, the “pages” are the UK and the EU (which represent their local businesses) and levelling would be an agreement on a common set of rules and standards, so that neither side could harm others by ignoring areas such as workers` rights and environmental protection. Article 77 of the Political Declaration (AP) states that “future relations [between the UK and the EU] must ensure open and fair competition, including strong commitments to ensure a level playing field… the exact nature [which should correspond to the breadth and depth of future relationships and the economic ties of the contracting parties.” But the simple fact is that the rules on these issues do not require the imposition of EU law on the UK, as the EU would have us believe. The level playing field is already guaranteed by the legal obligations of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which are members of both the UK and the EU. In addition to the withdrawal agreement, the UK and the EU have agreed on a political declaration (PD) outlining their joint commitment to an ambitious and comprehensive economic partnership. These include a free trade agreement and broader sectoral cooperation. It made a commitment to a “level playing field” to ensure “open and fair” competition, but the exact nature of the commitments “would correspond to the breadth and depth of future relationships.” One of the central themes of future negotiations is the search for agreement on commitments that could ensure a level playing field in trade relations between the two sides. This is seen as a subject that could either interrupt or interrupt negotiations. The objective of the competitive conditions in trade agreements is to ensure that competition is open and fair and that a trading partner`s firms do not gain a competitive advantage and that their competitors are inferior to others by avoiding the cost of stricter regulation. The sporting idiom of a “level Playing Playing” — an arena designed without any advantage for either side — has been increasingly applied to the economy since the late 1970s: one of the most well-known cases dates back to 1977 by the lobbyist of the American Bankers Association, John Bolger.
However, it expressly opposes the application of binding and enforceable dispute resolution in all four areas. When it comes to competition policy, it simply opposes the settlement of disputes under an agreement between Britain and the EU. In the area of subsidies, it orders the parties to settle disputes in the WTO. In short, at this stage of the negotiations, where there is only one month left to decide whether an extension is necessary, the two sides are very far apart. Without a little give-and-take between the parties on at least a few issues of equal competition, it seems unlikely that an agreement will be reached. Finally, the agreement should also take into account the circumstances in which a party has updated its rules to strengthen them, which has an impact on the commitments made by the LPF. One possibility would be for both parties to agree that such cases would create an automatic obligation for the other party to achieve the same effects or to accept compensatory measures instead.