This isn't a good description of "ratchet clauses" if that's what it's hinting at. The issue there is where *both sides* raise their standards, the ratchet clause means that if the UK were subsequently to backslide then the EU could levy trade penalties in response. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1336633626109349888

And it's not a new demand, so idea that they've only got three weeks to resolve the complex mechanics of how this would work is wrong. It's simply a question of political willingness to find a compromise. That might be lacking, but it's not due to the complexity of the ask.

For those interested, here's the Commission's summary of ratchet clauses

And...it seems to be the exact *opposite* of complexity or uncertainty for businesses - especially as it pertains to trade with the UK's largest trading partner. It's about ensuring that trade frictions remain as limited as possible https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1336633627782901760

It's a point of principle issue, which is why it's problematic. The UK can't articulate why it's resistant to "ratchet clauses" on environmental and labour protections given that any threat to lower levels would be inconsistent with stated domestic policy priorities.

So we fall back on sovereignty arguments that, in truth, have no hope of resolution since the very purpose of trade negotiations is to offer market access in exchange for mutually-agreed limits on scope for unilateral action.

Anyway, it's not a very good thread from Peston there IMO. More heat, little light. And we need to keep focused on the details here.