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)

References

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) [1]. 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 {{About|trade agreements made by the United Kingdom since January 2020|Information about the UK’s [[withdrawal from the European Union]] and how it affected the UK’s global trade|Brexit}} 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)

@John Maynard Friedman: Unless we link the EU single market and customs union to the template

This article is about trade agreements made by the United Kingdom since January 2020. For inter EU - U.K trade prior to Brexit, see EU Single Market & EU Customs Union. For international trade prior to Brexit, see Trade Agreements of the European Union.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

@John Maynard Friedman: 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)

"Trade value" column needs explanation

What's the value in this column supposed to be? I see multiple ambiguities:

• Does it refer to a total "value" of trade between the UK and the other named country, the value of the subset of trade to which the terms of the deal pertain, or a (claimed/projected/modelled) increase in value of trade between the countries resulting from the trade deal?
• Does the trade value include services or just goods (or does this depend on the agreement type)?
• Is the "value" of trade just the sum of prices paid for goods/services or is the "value" of a purchase distinct from its price?

Without some prose explaining this, this entire column is completely meaningless. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Indonesia

From a House of Lords debate: "The UK and Indonesia will work towards a new Indonesian-UK economic growth partnership, which is normally the precursor to any formal conversations on a free trade agreement." https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2025-03-06a.438.2&s=India+free+trade Should this be added, or should we await further developments?

Proposed UK-US "EPD" not an FTA?

@StevoLaker, can you explain https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_trade_agreements_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1289808321? What element of the definition of an "FTA" do the proposed terms of the EPD not satisfy?

My understanding of the WTO Most favoured nation rule is that the only way two developed countries like the US and UK are allowed to agree to preferential tariff reductions is via an FTA, and therefore (unless WTO rules are being broken), any agreement between them that includes tariff reductions must necessarily be an FTA. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for raising this here!

It is a very good question, and the short answer is that the UK-US EPD probably does break WTO rules.

Long answer:

So there are two parts to this question

‘’What element of the definition of an "FTA" do the proposed terms of the EPD not satisfy?’’

Ok so first let's first define a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), a Free Trade Agreement is a type of Regional Trade Agreement (RTA) governed by: GATT Article XXIV (for goods) and GATS Article V (for services). So some of the key takeaways of these articles are:

• Substantially All Trade
  • The FTA must eliminate tariffs and other restrictive regulations on substantially all trade between the parties.
  • This typically means more than 90% of tariffs, both in terms of tariff lines and trade volume.
• Reasonable Length of Time
  • Tariff elimination can be staged but should be completed within a “reasonable length of time,” usually interpreted as up to 10 years.
• No Higher Barriers to External Parties
  • The FTA must not raise barriers to trade with countries outside the agreement.

Not sure if tables work here but you can paste this into a blank Wikipedia document if it doesn't:

Why the UK–US Deal Does Not Qualify as a WTO-Recognised FTA

WTO FTA Requirement	UK–US Deal Status (2025)	Why It Fails
Substantially covers all trade (goods)	Only covers select goods only (cars, steel, ethanol, beef, etc.)	Far too narrow—most sectors remain untouched.
Services liberalisation	No provisions for services trade	GATS Article V not satisfied.
Permanent tariff elimination	Tariff cuts are limited and quota-based	100,000 car quota, ethanol limits—partial liberalisation.
Legal enforceability & dispute settlement	No formal WTO-style mechanisms	Deal is a political agreement with limited enforcement.
Comprehensive scope	Only focuses on politically symbolic sectors	Lacks digital trade, IP, investment, procurement, etc.

So I believe it's fair to say that it's not an FTA under WTO rules. Next question: does anyone else claim that the UK-US deal is an FTA?

Neither the UK government nor the US government have officially claimed the agreement to be an FTA, they instead use phrases such as “prosperity deal” or “historic trade deal” to refer to the deal (including the citations used in the edit). Many reputable media outlets and reporters specifically refer to the UK-US deal as not an FTA, including: Politico, Reuters, and Sky News.

Given that it does not qualify as WTO-recognised FTA, neither government claims the deal is an FTA, and most reports specifically claim it is not an FTA—I believe it is fair to say this is not a free trade agreement.

In relation to the second sentence:

Yes you are mostly correct about the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle, however you have made a slight error. An agreement granting tariff reductions is not automatically an FTA, as FTAs are not the only exception to the MFN principle, other examples include Customs Unions, the 1979 Enabling clause (Allows developed countries to give preferential treatment to developing countries), and WTO waivers for temporary derogations.

So does it break WTO rules?

Firstly it's important to acknowledge that many trade lawyers, countries, and trade blocs view Trump’s initial tariffs that forced the trade deal to be breaking WTO rules (most notably the European Union which is launching a legal claim against the US).

If the UK and US give each other preferential tariffs (even if quota-limited) without a qualifying FTA, this constitutes illegal discrimination against all other WTO members.

Yes, the deal is almost certainly in breach of WTO rules on non-discrimination and MFN treatment. No legal exemption appears to justify it yet, so a WTO challenge by a third country would likely succeed. There will only be a legal decision on whether it breaks WTO rules if another country makes the claim. However, many countries are pushing to make their own tariff deals meaning it is likely the UK deal will probably not be challenged. StevoLaker (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this extremely detailed reply. Certainly it suffices to convince me the deal is not an FTA!

I suggest the EPD is nonetheless worth a one-sentence mention in the "Progress" column in the table in the main article; any liberalisation is conceivably progress towards a future FTA, and mentioning it there lets us explicitly note that it is not an FTA (a fact for which you have just provided ample refs!) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Have chucked in a short sentence about it - I'll bow out now and let you and other editors tweak (or remove) as you see fit. Thanks again for the great reply. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi apologies for my long reply last time (I will be shorter today).

Given this page is specifically about the UK's free trade agreements, I am going to oppose mentioning it for the time being. If an official source stated that this was a trade agreement with the end goal of a possible FTA it would be different (similar to the Thailand trade talks). Until then I think we should not mention it as all we are sure about the deal currently is that it is not an FTA.

In the mean time there is definitely a good argument for creating a page about the United Kingdom–United States Economic Prosperity Deal, or more general page about the Trump tariff agreements (given that China, Japan, Vietnam, Switzerland, etc are currently negotiating deals). StevoLaker (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I have just added a hidden note to editors that says

The Trump/Starmer announcement of 8 May 2025 is just a "statement of intent", not an FTA. It is just another case where Trump has backtracked – to some extent – on his unilateral imposition of tariffs and we are supposed to be grateful that is 'only' 10%. As of 12 May, a sixth round has not commenced. For the long explanation, see the talk page.
Please use the talk page first to secure consensus before adding anything that says otherwise.

It is just performance politics, nothing substantive. So no, per WP:NOTNEWS, I don't see a case for a "United Kingdom–United States Economic Prosperity Deal" article. It is just more of Trump's attention seeking behaviour: it will be worth a passing mention in a broader article but not an article in its own right because it will never be more than a wp:stub. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

A note pointing here is good idea but I take issue with the wording. Nobody has so suggested that the statement of intent in and of itself constitutes an FTA; what was disputed was whether the intended deal will be an FTA. I also think it is healthy to keep the note NPOV, even if it is just a HTML comment and not article content. I'll tweak.

As for it being nothing substantive - I think that is surely false if the deal goes ahead (it will surely then be more consequential than actual FTAs between the UK and small countries, almost all of which do have articles, including ones with puny 8-digit trade values). Perhaps there is a case, though, that until the deal is actually signed, a possible future deal is not notable enough to deserve an article; I don't have an opinion currently. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

But it is nothing like an FTA. Trump imposed economic sanctions on America's friends and foes alike and, as the entirely predictable and predicted consequences materialise, he is backtracking but continuing to be a playground bully – only taking your lunch money without beating you up first. It is risible to call it a deal. Do I really have to dig out the many RSs that say so? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of my two paragraphs you're arguing against above, nor how your comment connects in either case. Just because the deal proposal follows Trump imposing tariffs on everyone and was in some sense coerced neither means that the deal won't constitute an FTA (though it won't, for technical definitional reasons Stevo has outlined above), nor that it isn't notable enough for an article. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Sweden missing from map?

Hi @StevoLaker, in your latest version of the map on this page, somehow Sweden has vanished. The previous versions included Sweden, so any chance you could add it back? Katiermitchell (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for letting me know. Theres seems to have been a formatting error when the map was downloaded, I have uploaded a new version. StevoLaker (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)