Talk:Trade negotiation between the UK and the EU

Already covered?
Why do you say:
 * "Undue weight to a specific topic that would be relatively minor within the scope of this proposed article."
 * "Further, this topic is already well covered by existing Brexit articles."

It looks like fisheries issue is a key point for both the EU and Johnson.

Also, which exact article cover both topics: fisheries and Trade deal negotiation between the UK and EU?

Too much weight on the "Fisheries issue"
What's about creating a dedicated article: "Fisheries issues" or "Brexit fisheries issues"?
 * In fact, fisheries only count for 2871 bytes out of 15081, that's only 18% of the article.
 * I have trimmed the fisheries part with unimportant things. Fisheries are a big part of the negotiations, as EU have linked them to trade talks, but that one part of the article is better that the others should not harm the article. There is no other articles covering the ongoing negotiations, Brexit negotiations ends in October 2019. ― Hebsen (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Not trimmed enough for the lead. It will be a flashpoint yes because it has totemic importance in the UK but its economic significance is trivial, <0.5% of trade. The material I deleted belongs in the body. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also remember that, per wp:LEAD, the lead should only be a summary of the body. So a new sentence needs adding to the lead that actually summarises the fisheries issue. The sentence that I deleted didn't do that. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "The thorny issue of fishing rights has been allocated the most time" EU has no legal duty to give UK trade privileges, document says, The Guardian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.92 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammar, language
For such a high profile topic, this article should have had a lot more copyediting before coming out of draft space. I don't have time to do it now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Negotiations in April 2020
Some citations in a holding pattern to be used (or not) at the end of April when the month can be summarised "As we prepare for the next Rounds of negotiations, I want to reiterate the Government's position on the transition period created following our withdrawal from the EU. Transition ends on 31 December this year. We will not ask to extend it. If the EU asks we will say no. Extending would simply prolong negotiations, create even more uncertainty, leave us liable to pay more to the EU in future, and keep us bound by evolving EU laws at a time when we need to control our own affairs. In short, it is not in the UK's interest to extend."
 * Videoconference planned for 15/4/20.
 * Videoconference planned for 15/4/20.
 * Videoconference planned for 15/4/20.

- David Frost



Negotiations in May
Another round of citation collection, to use or not when writing the section at the end of the month: John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation to other languages?
This article only exists in English! It should also be translated in the languages of the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.92 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should. If you have at least B2 proficiency in English and any other language(s), please go ahead and native speakers will improve it. We are all volunteers here. Right now, Google Translate is not good enough to do it automatically.
 * Another problem is that all the citations are .uk, or .ie news sources. The same news was reported in the news media in most countries (but obviously not to the same detail) but you will have to hunt them down. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

New section: Draft legal and treaty texts
u|88.136.214.5 has added a new section called "Draft legal and treaty texts", which gives the 'opening bids' by each side. This is useful and should stay. But the accompanying subsection (originally another section), called "Official drafts", seems to present exactly the same information again in a different, more intrusive, form. Is there a good reason to keep that subsection? What does it add to the (new) preceding section?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have resolved the issue by putting the documents into ==External links== per WP:MOS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

September 2020 section, FT report 7 Sept and associated reaction
The new material under September 2020 is well supported by citation but I have to question whether it is appropriate to include in the article straight away, without time to see it in a wider perspective. It certainly looks like the FT was given a deliberate leak but subsequent ministerial statements have tried to play down its significance. The FT reported what it understood would be in the United Kingdom’s Internal Market Bill – but the bill is due to be published tomorrow so it seems to me that we should report what the bill actually says rather than what it might say. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. We can also report dispassionate commentary. Delete? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added it. I agree about WP:NOTNEWS, but I think it is significant to include, given that it attracted reactions from von der Leyen. Sure, it needs adjustments when the bill is published and more data is available; feel free to make those adjustments. ― Hebsen (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thinking about it a bit more, the FT article might have been non-notable click bait but the reaction to it was certainly notable. So for that reason it should stay. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

FT, 13 September
Just jotting this link here as it may become useful to cite later:

Guardian, 17 September
Likewise this one: "If the UK does not comply with the exit agreement, there will no longer be a basis for a free trade agreement between the EU and the UK. The UK government must correct this before we continue to negotiate our political and economic relations."

No deal Brexit or Australia like deal
What would occur in case no trade deal is agreed at the defined date?
 * would it be a no deal Brexit?
 * would this no deal be a kind of Australia like deal?
 * would the UK remain in the EEA?

This issue does not seams adressed in the article?. Might be an additional section could address such a topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.216.31 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. First, Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say, we try not to contribute our own research or opinions. We also do not speculate, especially about the future. So sorry, we can't have the section you suggest.


 * No, it wouldn't be a no-deal Brexit because Brexit has already happened and there was a withdrawal deal. What is confusing is that the UK media are reusing the term for no-trade-deal, perhaps because most of the problems identified then are still around, but a little bit more preparations have been made.
 * The PM is using the term "Australia deal", which is being economical with the truth. Australia is half a world away and its trade with the EU is tiny, it just sounds sunshine, sweetness and light. UK trade with the European Economic Area (the EEA, which = EU +EFTA -Switzerland) is about 50% of UK trade in goods and services. Calling it "the Russia deal" would be more honest. That arrangement is better known as World Trade Organization terms, which are for goods only (UK trade surplus is in Services) and has lots of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Most commentators have said that the effect on the UK would be very severe indeed. It would certainly hurt the EU too, but by nothing like as much.
 * No, by leaving the EU, the UK has already left the EEA.
 * I hope that answers your questions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact Australia has some sector agreements with the EU so the PM is bending reality to suit his fairy tale. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * For more information see this BBC article What does 'no-deal' Australia-style Brexit mean? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 section: collecting citations
will need wrapping up in the next few days. So collecting some citations:
 * (to be expressed as "one person briefed on the talks told The Financial Times that...)
 * --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge of EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
I created on wp:fr the equivalent of EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and I think that Trade negotiation between the UK and the EU should be merge with EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. And that Fish for finance need to be largely modified. Nouill (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt that anyone who just wants to know what has been agreed really wants to plough through the in and outs of the negotiation. But for other readers, that is an important historical record. Maybe in France the whole thing is not such a huge deal but it certainly is for us in the UK. The F4F article is important because UK inc. makes a loss on all its trading activity except services, especially financial services, so it is very difficult to understand why our government cares more about an industry that earns less than a rounding error for one of the big banks. So no, I disagree with your proposal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with John. IF we were to merge it, than we would have a very long trade negotiation section, resulting in it being farmed out into ... its own article. Let's make one section in the agreement-page on the negotiations with a -template at the top L.tak (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The OP fails to explain to explain the benefits of merger. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)