Talk:Free trade agreements of the United Kingdom

Image / text use (Gov.Uk)

 * Crown Copyright.


 * These have been produced by, or on behalf of, government and so can be re-used by government as well as being free to re-use under the Open Government Licence (OGL)by non-government users; or made available for re-use under an appropriate creative commons licence such as the CC-BY Licence (also see this blogpost)
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Trading partner
is there a confusion between import and export? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.5 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreements Currently Been Negotiated (Global)
What do we mean by global?

What is the difference between FTA treaties and global FTA treaties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.5 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Press release-ese
I deleted this material from the lead per WP:LEAD because (a) it doesn't summarise body content and (b) it reads like a government press release. It needs to be rewritten in less breathless prose and given a suitable home: "S.T.A.G consists of industry representatives, experts and academics throughout the UK, who advise the negotiating team on the best course of action and ensure that the voice of the devolved nations are heard".

The Department of International trade will also consult the Agriculture and Trade Commission (ATC), who will be responsible for advising on food standards in any free trade Agreement to ensure that the UK Agriculture sector remains competitive.

The UK Government will also consult the Board of Trade who will meet quarterly and use their expertise to strengthen any UK free trade agreement."

"The Government will consult its own departments" - seriously? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

COATRACK?
The article title is "Free trade agreements of the United Kingdom". Pre my edit the article read like the UK has 20 FTAs signed and ready to go. The rest of the article doesn't have sufficient background for context. The reality, afaik, is that the UK has one FTA (Japan). afaik: the agreements with Israel etc are continuity agreements, they're not free trade, and they're on the basis of trade agreements with the EU currently. They eliminate some tariffs/bridge some barriers, but are a far cry from free trade (or near that). Article feels like a WP:COATRACK to me, in that sense, or at the very least a misleading impression. Not trying to raise issue with this entire set of articles, but I honestly feel like a few are misleading to readers. This one still is, and I don't really know how to fix it. Raising the concern here for thoughts. One easy solution is maybe just to move this to "Trade agreements of the United Kingdom". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the suggested move as a far better summary of actuality right now. Unless anyone objects in the next say 48 hours, it is an uncontroversial move and you can and should just move it. Toning down the rhetoric is more of a challenge and will continue to need work. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Logic problem with the tables in this page
There are probably many logical problems. The one that I can clearly identify has to do with the sequence of a country moving from the discussion of some kind of agreement with the UK to a state where this agreement has been signed. There is a table titled "Free trade deals being negotiated", but there is no table titled "Free trade deals signed". In the other sense, thre is a table titled "Signed UK trade agreements" but there is no table titled "UK trade agreements being negotiated".--AlainV (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement
Is it necessary to have a long winded opening statement explaining what already has a page dedicated to explaining it? Brexit

I would suggest using a template such as {about} to link to the dedicated page and then reduce the opening statement so that it is not cluttered.

ChefBear01 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you be a bit more specific on what you think should be deleted? A short paragraph that gives a very brief summary of the nature of the UK's trade agreements up to 2019 surely needs to be included in this article?
 * I'm also concerned about your about hatnote as it stands because Brexit is about the withdrawal process, it says nothing [and should say nothing] about the global trade consequences thereof. That is a whole new topic and needs to be handled separately (and it is far too early to write an NPOV account anyway,IMO). So specifically, I believe that the phrase and how it affected the UK’s global trade should be deleted.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it more, your version is a misuse of template:about, which is for closely related material.It is not a main, more or a see also. I will revise to say something like "for|the UK's earlier agreements|trade agreements of the European Union". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the link and the text in the template says all that needs to be said, the dedicated page can then expand on the explanation.

The paragraph regarding the UK’s trade while in the EU should be in the dedicated page you linked to either in exact words or in similar pages going into detail regarding the UK trading with the EU and it’s trade agreements.

Thank you for adjusting the template, I was only aware of the about template which is why I used it.

Following its withdrawal from the European Union on 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom began negotiations on several free trade agreements to remove or reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, both to establish new agreements and to replace previous EU trade agreements. Withdrawal ended 47 years of membership during which all its trading agreements were negotiated by the European Commission on behalf of the bloc as a whole. The UK did not actually withdraw from the European Single Market and the European Union Customs Union (and its trade agreements) until 31 December 2020. ChefBear01 (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I really cannot see how it is possible to have an article about the UK's trade agreements without that reference to what came before. Otherwise you are in Pol Pot "year zero" fantasy land. The only compromise I can see might be to move it out of the lead and make it the first section below the lead, called 'Background' or something. But you can't just handwave it off to the Brexit article. That would be a serious error of judgement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Before Brexit, the UK's trade with the rest of the EU was operated under single market rules. Maybe that could be added to the moved section. It would also need to say that it covered services as well as goods, which the new TCA does not - which is a major issue given the predominance of that sector in the UK economy and its only trade surplus. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless we link the EU single market and customs union to the template

Then keep the below text in the opening statement, the rest is explained in the two articles.

"Following its withdrawal from the European Union on 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom began negotiations on several free trade agreements to remove or reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, both to establish new agreements and to replace previous EU trade agreements."

I am suggesting a meeting half way, with some more links and a reduction. ChefBear01 (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that there are some serious misunderstandings here.
 * The EU Customs Union is irrelevant to this topic. In a nutshell, goods from outside the single market are examined for compliance with common standards and subjected to common duties/tariffs at any port of entry, by the national customs authority of the country concerned, for and on behalf of, the Union as a whole. Once past Heathrow Schiphol or Marseilles, the product is free to be traded anywhere within the SM. So nothing to do with trade agreements.
 * The UK's foreign trade agreements before Brexit were identically those of the EU as a whole. The European Single Market is not a free trade agreement: model it mentally on the UK Internal Market and trade between England and Scotland (not a perfect model but close enough to illustrate the point). This part of your proposed about text is fundamentally misconceived.
 * The UK's trade with the EU should be mentioned certainly, but in the section about the T&CA, not the 'about' hatnote.
 * I'm afraid I must insist that the existing first paragraph remains. It is critical to understanding the context, to why we are where we are. It is the minimum size it needs to be, we cannot assume that visitors have ploughed through the acres of text about the referendum, the palace coups, the Supreme Court cases and all the rest, and might just happen to have come across this key item of information. Most articles have this sort of short scene-setting section. See for example Northern Ireland Protocol. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Between the two choices of a new section that would require details of goods and services, and the current opening statement, the second(and current option) seems the best and least messy option.

It seems this whole discussion was pointless as it went full circle and lead nowhere.

ChefBear01 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't pointless if it prevented critical information being removed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Customs Unions - bold, revert, discuss
The only customs union involving the UK was the EU Customs Union, of which it is no longer a member. Trade agreements are not customs unions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Flags
Why are there no flags when other pages on FTAs such as the EU and india use them? StevoLaker (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Obselete Agreements placement
Is there a reason why the leading table is obselete agreements?

surely it would make sense to put it near the bottom of the article as it the least relevent table? StevoLaker (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)