Basically both sides eliminate tariffs, but the UK would reserve the right to fall out of step with EU Level Playing Field rules.
If they did so, the EU would have the right to raise tariffs.
A thread on how negotiators might approach this.
Dispute settlement, whether at the WTO or in an FTA is there to (theoretically) resolve disagreements about what following rules means.
That's similar in effect, but very different symbolically.
First, how is a UK policy or regulation identified as potentially out of line with LPF?
Does the EU need to monitor all UK measures? Does the UK need to let it?
Is the process an internal EU review, as it is for anti-dumping investigations?
Is it a panel of independent or mutually agreed judges, as it is at the WTO?
How will this differ from the FTA's dispute settlement?
In other words can the UK fiddle around with say its environmental regulatory settings and have one of them dip below the EU level, if put together it's still greener than EU LPF?
Is the EU allowed to unilaterally decide what appropriate balancing means?
Is there a formula?
Can the EU withdraw concessions in agriculture over a subsidy that primarily affects manufacturing?
What about if there's cross-cutting regulatory relaxation, like on labour?
Do the EU tariffs come off automatically?
Is there a panel process to determine if the UK is newly in compliance?
For negotiators though, key questions:
UK - How can this be used to unfairly stifle our regulation or lock us out of EU markets?
EU - Will this actually let us protect ourselves from undercutting by UK LPF changes?
/end