Talk:EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Map fault

Hi everyone. I was looking at the map set as the picture of the article (i.e. European_Union_United_Kingdom_Locator.svg), and I've noticed that, probably unintentionally, Malta has been coloured in blue while it should clearly be green, being it part of the European Union and, most importantly, since blue is not used as a colour in the map according to the legend. So I reckon this issue should be fixed by somebody who is able to do so. Thank you all in advance.--NicolaArangino (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You have good eyesight. I've raised it with the editor who uploaded the image. EddieHugh (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I wish I had ahahah, with my terrible nearsightedness and astigmatism lol. But thank you though. Glad to hear you've looked into it.--NicolaArangino (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC) UPDATE: Already fixed, thank you all for your promptness!--NicolaArangino (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I uploaded the map, and it was my error. At some point the map became admin protected though so I cannot upload a correction. I have asked, and await a response.

There is an alternative that could be used: File:United Kingdom and European Union (Red-Blue).svg Hogweard (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now been able to fix the original. Hogweard (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IP and geographical indications

L.tak, I don't think that this change is an improvement. IP rights are not a controversial or major aspect of this agreement, and the text you wrote essentially says that nothing is to change. By contrast, geographical indications are a contentious issue because they involve whether UK companies can sell their cheese as "Parmesan" and so forth. Sandstein 20:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason for my choices were that the Parmesan issue is an issue under the Brexit withdrawal agreement and not this one, whereas the commitments to become parties to two treaties they are not parties to, and the age of 70 years (copyright) is now a legal obligation for both (so they can not go down to 50...). Feel free to tweak a bit with this in mind, but those are the reasons to keep it in... L.tak (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but our article about the Brexit withdrawal agreement says nothing about geographical indications either, and readers will look for this in this article which is about the permanent treaty. I get that from a Wikipedia perspective IP protections are of great interest, but I doubt that they are to the average reader. I'd be more comfortable with including this if a secondary source wrote about it; do you know of any? Sandstein 20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am happy to throw the geographical indications out as not that relevant here... wikipedia readers should not come here for something that is not in the treaty ;-)) L.tak (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I know that this is your view, but mine is that geographical indications are a significant issue in trade, and we should cover somewhere what the rules about them are now after Brexit. Sandstein 20:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Then my suggestion is to add that to the text I last added and leave the paragraph at that (it is reconfirmed in this draft agreement after all). Would that be acceptable to you? L.tak (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not quite; I've attempted to edit the text to make it more concise while leaving in the 70-year pma term, which I agree is of interest. But we should base our article on secondary sources, and even the lengthy UK government summary we now cite makes no mention of these other IP treaties. Sandstein 21:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, when clear enough (and stated factual) a primary source is good enought; so regarding the 2 treaties the text is quite clear I'd say (Article IP 4.2). The sentence now in is a bit problematic (the part "are to be preserved or extended"). Much of the legislation is preserved, but extended is meant with respect to the multilateral conventions named in article IP 4.1. In other words: while in the rest of those paragraphs we compare to the pre-Brexit situation, here the comparison is compared to the bare mulitlateral treaty obligations. That should then be made abundantly clear... L.tak (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is not the reliability of the primary source, it's our selection from it. We aim to give a summary of the agreement, so we need to pick and choose the few most important aspects of the 1,200 page text. And the way we should do that is to follow secondary sources, highlighting what they highlight, not setting our own priorities. Our current main sources (the two governments' summaries) do not go into any detail at all regarding IP, so neither should we. Sandstein 21:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I can respect that with regards to the treaties, but... the first sentence is still too multiinterpretable to stay I'd say.... L.tak (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Security agreement and nuclear cooperation agreement

These are formally separate treaties even though they were ratified together. This has not been mentioned in the article and they don’t have their own articles; should we add something here? – Kaihsu (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning them here seems reasonable. Details of the nuclear agreement are best added to European Atomic Energy Community § Withdrawal of the United Kingdom. Wire723 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I added something to the leading paragraphs. – Kaihsu (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

'Sealed'

Unfortunately, {{Infobox treaty}} doesn't define what it means by "sealed" but in contract law it means that the parties have affixed their official seal, making it final. This happens after signatures, not before. So the agreement has not been sealed but merely approved in principle. It cannot be signed, let alone sealed, until the Parliaments have ratified. Which the EP won't even begin to do until the draft is translated into each of the official languages. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sealed is a vague term. Sometimes sealed is also used for exactly what you are saying: when the agreement is agreed on in principle. Good to leave it out. As for the signature etc. What in most countries happens (but UK is vague because of the Ponsonby Rule) is that signature is up to the government, and ratification can only take place after parliament has approved. Provisional application can generally only take place after signature. In this reading (and that is what the treaty box it is used), ratification is not the approval by parliament, but the deposit of the instrument of ratification after full parliamentary approval... L.tak (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a constitutional lawyer (or even a lawyer) but as I understand it, the term 'sealed' comes from attaching the Great Seal of State. The sequence is thus:

• the principal negotiators sign: in this case, BJ and UvdL.
• the parliaments ratify (in the UK, by passing the Bill, don't know about the EP process). This is incorrect about the UK, see Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• the Heads of State attach their seals (nowadays I suspect it is done by Royal Assent to the Bill in the UK and the President of the Council communicating its decision). I suppose the seal equivalent is to lodge the Treaty with the UN (or WTO in this case?).

Agree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Having an expert here to clarify these matters would certainly help. Short of that, I think these terms are a bit tricky. Based on my readings and quick research, "sealed" seems to be informally used a lot and at different stages of a treaty. While "ratified" seems to be formally used anytime a party to the treaty individually ratifies it. So for any one treaty, both terms appear to be used multiple times at different stages. It gets confusing IMO. But, if nobody here objects, then lets just leave the infobox as is, with the EU Council's ratification date (April 29) under the date_sealed parameter. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 09:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in the wikisource:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties about sealing. Ratifying and signing, yes. I think it’s the template:infobox treaty that needs fixing: changing “sealed” to “ratified”. – Kaihsu (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend adding a "date_ratified" parameter to the Template:Infobox treaty, and leaving the "date_sealed" as is, just in case. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 10:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree but note the problem that the UK ratified three months ago, so maybe we need a note in the template to make clear that "date_ratified" means the date of exchange of Instruments of Ratification (bilateral treaties) or, for multilateral treaties, the date on which the minimum number of nations had deposited their Instruments with "the depository" (UN, WTO, etc). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see my suggestion below. History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the term 'sealed' valid in modern international law?

Interesting that we have such an extensive template when the treaty article says nothing about ratification or sealing. The article ratification says

Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent that lacked the authority to bind the principal legally. Ratification defines the international act in which a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, and in the case of multilateral treaties, the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation.

and says nothing about seals. (Contrary to what I said above, Ratification#United Kingdom says that the Parliament of the UK only has to be consulted – that it is the monarch who ratifies on the advice of the government – xref Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. My error, so I have stricken my claim above re the UK.)

Can anyone find a treaty article that uses the "sealed" tag? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

See discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_treaty#date_sealed_parameter. – Kaihsu (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

So that parameter needs to be documented too. I will be bold and update the template documentation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have also requested that date_ratified be added to the template. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if that will enlighten what's happening in treaties. We generally indicate as "ratification" the deposit (or exchange) of the instrument(s) of ratification. In this case we would have 3, and the approval of the UK in that is vague (because of the Ponsonby-rule). I suggest we handle this outside the treaty box. I do agree however the "sealed" is out of place here. I have no idea what it means and only note it is used as date negotiations were concluded on wikipedia... L.tak (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

A quick suggestion: In cases where a treaty has multiple ratification dates, then lets leave a hidden note next to the newly created date_ratified parameter saying "If more than one date, type 'Multiple dates' and wikilink to article section detailing all the ratification dates (if no section exists add a footnote)".

Please see also my proposal at Template talk:Infobox treaty#Date ratified.

Good day, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 23:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

When and how did the UK ratify?

We have some handwaving text that claims that the UK ratified when Parliament decided [to pass the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 ]. The Ponsonby Rule (legally the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010#Treaty ratification, specifically Part 2.) only requires that Parliament be consulted, that entering into treaties is a Royal Prerogative (exercised by Her Majesty's Government) and can legally be done even if Parliament doesn't approve. So the text as it stands is not correct and I have tagged as dubious.

I can't find anywhere that says how the UK actually ratifies treaties: does the concept even exist in UK law? (Maybe I need to search a bit harder, but can anyone fill the gap?) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This article at UKConstitionalLaw.org, cited at Ratification#United Kingdom, agrees that Parliament does not ratify. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

@John Maynard Friedman: Maybe ask by FOI request for the text of the UK notification under Article 783(1) of the agreement? – Kaihsu (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely all that will say is something along the lines of "we hereby notify you [EU] that we [UK] have ratified the Agreement". Why would HMG feel any inclination, let alone obligation, to tell the EU (or Japan, for that matter) the details of its internal processes to arrive at that point? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there are two different legal concepts here:

1. At international law, when a state expresses its consent to be bound by the treaty (wikisource:Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties#Article_11_—_Means_of_expressing_consent_to_be_bound_by_a_treaty et seq.)
2. In domestic law, what internal procedure needs to happen before such expression can be considered lawful (kinda similar to Miller I).

For the first, if we just want a “date of ratification”, the date of the letter suffices. The second can be an additional FOI question. (I am not an expert in this area.) – Kaihsu (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess what we really need to establish is the general principle. It is not really practical to have to send an FoI request after every treaty. It seems to me that we must be missing something obvious, which the ConstitutionalLaw.org site seems to take as read. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

For many multilateral treaties, lists of ratification dates are available: e.g. [1] [2] [3]. The situation about the UK internal principles and procedure is well described in the references you listed above. By the way, it’s remarkable to recall what AG Braverman stated in her recent essay, stretching the distinction above to an extreme:

It is an established principle of international law that a state is obliged to discharge its treaty obligations in good faith. This is, and will remain, the key principle in informing the UK’s approach to international relations. However, in the difficult and highly exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is important to remember the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. ¶ Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK’s Treaty obligations. Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation. This ‘dualist’ approach is shared by other, similar legal systems […].

— [4]

– Kaihsu (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Multilateral treaties are more 'fathomable' because of the system of "deposit of instruments of ratification". What I am struggling with is the process for bilateral treaties. I am still concerned that our citations for ratification_date are a bit WP:synth.

As for Braverman's statement, there is nothing special about the UK in this: any participant to a treaty can breach it legally according to national law but to do so is still illegal under international law (and forever questions the good faith of the country concerned in other and future treaties). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The ratification on the EU side also seems strange, given that the EU Parliament didn't approve it until April.[5] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a footnote to that: the EP vote alone didn't ratify, it needed both the EP and the Council. Broadly equivalent to Royal Assent. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Expressing the consent to be bound is not one-size-fits-all; ratification is one of several possibilities: see art. 11 VCLT. For the present agreement, art. 783(1) is the relevant provision. Kaihsu (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the FOI response look nice! Kaihsu (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And note that it has the Great Seal and says "this Instrument is signed and sealed by HM Secretary of State" and dated 22 April 2021, so that is what goes in the Sealed = field of the infobox. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That may be the date the UK notification was sealed, but not necessarily when the agreement itself was sealed – if it was sealed at all. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I cannot tell from the low-resolution image what seal it is, but it doesn’t look like the Great Seal of the Realm. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone please upload it to Commons/Wikisource? @Jusjih and 廣九直通車? – Kaihsu (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Now up. Kaihsu (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)