Talk:Free trade agreements of the European Union

new image

At the moment we have File:World blank map countries.PNG as an illustration of the FTAs. That file has a different methodology (and no refs). It distinguishes for example not provisional application and entry into force. Furthermore it is png, and thus not vectorized. I could make a new svg map that follows the logic of this page, and which is easily editable with a text editor, but that file would keep the internal borders of eu-countries in tact (which is a bit of a disadvantage). Shall I do that? L.tak (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I created something, available at File:EU FTAs.svg. I have removed those agreement "in negotiation" as it seems the moment of formal stalling is vague, and I don't want to have agreements in that are not going to materialise. For the same reason I have left this agreement out. L.tak (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Union free trade agreements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101001140720/http://ec.europa.eu:80/enterprise/policies/international/facilitating-trade/free-trade/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/facilitating-trade/free-trade/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

negotiating seciton

The section on negotiations is a bit weak at the moment. It is not much referenced, contains very old information (but probably not all available old information) and is not consistent on what to name first: the type of agreement or the state. Furthermore it has Indonesia with only plans to start negotiations. I am not sure what the best way forward is, but suggest

• to make a definite choice for "sort by type" (is this known for every negotiation), or "sort by country"
• don't add non-negotiating parties, unless stalled
• only add agreements with active negotiations reported since -say- 2011 (past 5 years) and state that at the top of the section.

any ideas? L.tak (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

ideas are still welcome! The same goes as far as I am concerned also for the image... If we can't get definietions here; I think we should remove them there as well.. L.tak (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Should China not be listed here? I thought negotiations started in 2013? A P Monblat (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Map must be updated

Map must be updated: remove UK from EU and add it to "agreement in force" group. --Spaastm (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Free trade agreement which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Update of the information on the article

I have edited the basic information in the article considering the new information which the European Commission has provided in their website which is also the source of this last edit. So I saw the needs for the change of the information in the article. There are some Agreements which are ratified or signed but also some Agreements which are on hold because of negation has been suspended between EU and the other participants. So this is the current updated version of the European Union free trade agreements. So now users who has some more ideas of the new version of the information on the article are free to say their opinion. --84.248.82.78 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we are not in a position to fully copy-paste the EU's version of the status. They mix up "agreements ratified" and agreements provisionally applied. I am more than willing to discuss changes, but will revert to the original version, until we have hammered out what of the commission website to copy paste and what not... L.tak (talk

The copy-paste (if you want to use this word) information from Commission website are currently the titles of the agreements and information status of Agreements. The information which is not from the commission website is just the No of jurisdictions represented and the Relations (Wikipedia articles of the EU relationships with the other Participants) information Rest of the information is actually quite the same than in the current old version. The agreements provisionally applied can be integrated to the updated version by new edit. This version gives more detail information which the Commission has given on the statues of the agreements. The edit of updated information wasn't yet ready because as you very well noticed the ratification information is still missing because the updated information wasn't there yet. The new version from the commission website could contain also information like Date of signing, Date of ratification, Participants (not included the EU members states because that's automatic), Type of the agreement. And also the the relationship article from Wikipedia it self. Do you have more ideas? --84.248.82.78 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

But why would we have provisionally applied agreements and agreements in in the same table and remove the info on provisional application and full application in the first table? And why are locations as Akrotiri missing? And why did you remove the number of states that ratified the agreement in the agreements concluded/provisionally applied? The number of jurisdictions involved is a nice additions though, but why not add that to the original agreement. Furthermore, which agreements have you had a different status-message from the commission? That may help see where a change should be made to this article... L.tak (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Provisionally applied agreements could be always updated when the agreements is fully ratified. But to have separate table could difficult in the future as the agreements coold be fully ratified. They have this category currently Agreements in place, Agreements being adopted or ratified, Agreements being negotiated and Agreements on hold. So where do you think that in our option the provisionally applied agreements could be categorized in these categories and removed status when it is finally ratified  ? Akrotiri and Dhekelia is missing from the Commission website but I think the Akrotiri and Dhekelia is included in the new EU-UK agreements like Gibraltar is or it is part of the single market recognized as part of Cyprus. But I am not sure the current status of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Akrotiri and Dhekelia was the in the Customs union until the Brexit withdrawal agreement was ratified Like Monaco is not in the Commission website but Andorra and San Marino are there since 1991. I think the Monaco is automatic include in the EU by the Commission because it has bilateral agreement with France. --84.248.82.78 (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, the Council of the EU has a great treaty database, which is referenced in virtually every agreement (see eg the entry on Canada. That indicates the provisional application. The only policy decision (so: not in the agreements database) is on negotiations and their status. Their approvements would be likely. As for Akrotiri, you removed it while it was referenced that it existed. That is a bit weird. And indeed, the basis now is the withdrawal agreement protocol, which is why we could add it. I would say all the things you removed (Monaco etc) were well referenced and should not be removed just because it is not included in the commission website... L.tak (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't knew about the European Council database.Of course the database of the European Council (Council of the European Union) could be used also with the datebase from the Commission like in case of Akrotiri, Monaco etc. . I didn't find the current status of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia since post-brexit and the reference which you mentioned was the old agreement of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia from 2003 when UK was still member state. But the current post-brexit status of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia is not in the databases (not in the the Commission's or the Council's website). Not even as Sovereign Base from S. Franco-Monegasque Treaty of 1958 which is mentioned in this article is not founded even from the Council's databate. Only the treaty of 2002 is the oldest founded treatt between EU and Monaco. Here you can check Monaco . --84.248.82.78 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you indicate which of the presently available references are unclear, as all of them are referenced? As for Akrotiri, it is part of the Brexit withdrawal agreement (specifically the PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE SOVEREIGN BASE AREAS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN CYPRUS), which is quite clear. See the discussion in the UK parliament for reference... I will add some references and notes shortly... For Monaco, information is available at [1], which is probably a good source. I'd have to check the first version of the TEU or TFEU to find the legal source... L.tak (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC) L.tak (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand now why the UK Sovereign Base Areas are not included in the Council or Commission webside. Becase the treaty between Cyprus and UK Sovereign Base Areas is bilateral like Northern Ireland Protocol is bilateral between Republic of Ireland and UK. Like Gibraltar is bilateral between Spain and UK. Like the 1958 Franco-Monégasque Treaties are bilateral between France and Monaco. --84.248.82.78 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not really for Akrotiri, that was the starting point, but since brexit it is arranged within the Brexit withdrawal agreement (in the protocol I mentioned). Indeed, the Franco-Monegasque treaties make sure that Monaco/EU has to apply it (see this text. L.tak (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So could this article be now reverted to the version which I finalised already today at 15:41, 31 January 2021‎? in in addition adding the information which we have discussed here (status of Monaco and the UK Sovereign Base Areas etc). Also mentioning the status of the provisionally applied agreements. So the article can be updated. The EU Council information would be taken also in some references like Monaco and other countries. --84.248.82.78 (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I would move the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment from its current category (new agreements) to "Agreements on Hold," as it seems that the principle agreement, though reached, will not be voted on by the European Parliament as a result of escalating tensions and sanctions imposed by both sides 208.46.240.4 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would not do that and keep the tables as they are. You didn't convince me the loss of information and aligning with a single website is very helpful. We loose lots of useful information if you do it that way. Why not make the changes you suggest that can be sourced based on what is available now? L.tak (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I see what you meen. Tell me if I am understand your points right; You want to keep the current version as it?But you will have consensus with me if the sources will be taken from an single website (European commission webside? Will that do for you?) and to add the information title like titles of the agreements, information status of Agreements, Date of ratification, Participants and Type of the agreement. So this change you will have consensus with me?. Also the 4th title on the article which is Negotiating title should be updated and sourced better with European commission webside sourch which hast more information. --84.248.82.78 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't mind if the source comes from 1 or more websites, as long as the source is reliable and give the right information. And indeed the title may help (do you mean: type of agreement or the formatl title?), "information status" I don't understand, and "negotiating status", could indeed best be sourced to the EC I think... L.tak (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have updated Negotiating title number 4 into updated version. I also divided it in to one more new title which one is new title called Agreements on hold (title number 5). --84.248.82.78 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)