Dr. Totis Kotsonisof Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law, explained earlier this year how the two sides might draw up an agreement to address their contrasting positions to mutual satisfaction.
"The UK’s aim of sovereignty and EU’s need to protect against the potential harm of unfair competitions can co-exist and, while the positions may currently appear poles apart, they can be reconciled with a unique agreement," Kotsonis said.
"The key to any agreement is ensuring that both parties commit to meeting common high standards in certain regulatory areas but crucially, without the two sides being obliged to maintain the same legislation. This would give the freedom the UK seeks to write its own rulebook, while the commitments can be underpinned by a robust dispute resolution mechanism that would give the EU27 confidence that acts on the UK side that are harmful to open and fair competition can be fairly redressed. To be clear, such arrangements would need to be reciprocal so that if the UK considers that the EU itself is lowering its regulatory standards in a way which harms fair competition, it should also be in a position to take appropriate measures to protect its market from unfair EU competition," he said.
"Ultimately, any solution is dependent upon both parties’ willingness to compromise and with 31 December looming it is a positive sign that the two sides continue to talk. Finding an acceptable compromise solution to the LPF commitments issue would ultimately remove a key, if not the key, stumbling block to concluding a post-Brexit UK-EU trade deal," he said.