Talk:Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Membership in multiple agreements[edit]

What happens with trade between 2 nations when they are related by both CPTPP and RCEP, but with different standards ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.109.219 (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer for today is: CPTPP applies, as RCEP is still under negotiation. When both apply it will depend on specific RCEP-conditions that may be in ("giving way" provisions). L.tak (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

The article describes the history and the ratification process but no section actually describes the provisions in the agreement, I think this should be added. --hroest 13:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this Black roses124 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree  Latin Beau  19:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euro/Afro-centric map[edit]

The map needs to be pacific centric.

At the moment, the pacific is divided in two on the map of countries, highlighting the least relevant parts of the world.

This is annoying here, but in other cases, if this is the standard map being used, it could really get up people's noses, especially when taking (neo)colonial sensitivities into account.

Chris Fletcher (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the map (adding China as applicant, ratification of Peru and recentring the map). As it turned out the map was messed up and not svg-editable anymore, but that is now solved. So for next chagnes: just open the svg in a text editor, and find the code in the first 30 lines (something like: ".gb, .cn" is where the applicants are, if you add a country there it will show up. I notice that China and UK have different statuses (UK: working group established, CN: applied), but I don't think we should add that here in the map... L.tak (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New map need[edit]

New map is needed that includes Thailand and Ecuador as applicants highlight the countries in orange Black roses124 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not just outright remove the image in question if you have an issue with it. Simply deleting the image and publishing the page as is leaves the article in a poor/sabotaged state, as was the case before I updated the map today.
To the point of your message, I have excluded Thailand as an applicant for now as they have not actually applied yet. South Korea is in the same category. I, or someone else will update this map again when they do formally apply. --Afiaki (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and thanks Black roses124 (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has Brunei not ratified?[edit]

Why are they not listed as a party? We note them as a signatory, but there is no explanation for why they are not listed as a party. Is this an oversight on our end? Or did they never ratify? If so, the article should probably include a sentence or two explaining why not.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of November last year (when ASEAN meeting was held), Brunei has not ratified yet, but expected. There is very little information about this. I'll study. Dr. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found an information as of December 24th last year that they are under domestic procedures. Dr. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating infobox map to reflect successful UK application[edit]

Given that the UK has now been accepted with final membership pending ratification by existing members, it might be more accurate to change the UK colour on the map and perhaps update the accompanying key to something like `Accepted applicants-dark red` Gashmak (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, agree. The color to express transitional situations is necessary, as the signature date (TBA) will be during the committee session in July, and there are three months until then in this case. But, I doubt if you can see the dark red at the edge of the map... I will recommend brighter color. Dr. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to move this map to the enlargement section, and add a new map at the top of the page with just the CPTPP signatories and members. It would also bring it in line with other pages such as NATO,EU,etc which only shows member states in the first image.
Do people agree? Would it be possible for someone to add this? StevoLaker (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CPTPP–United Kingdom relations[edit]

I believe that it is worth making a separate page for the United Kingdom's accession to CPTPP, using the subsection on Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Its section within enlargement is far too big compared to the others, and sub sections are getting confused. I would be willing to write additional content that I have been reluctant to add to the CPTPP page.

CPTPP—United Kingdom relations 

StevoLaker (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there is enough content for a fork I am not opposed to that. That said, I do wonder how much detail is actually required on this here. Most of the reactions/criticism seems to boil down to the government and some others saying that this is an important trade agreement for the UK, that the UK must pivot towards the Asia/the Pacific and that the agreement is likely to have a significant effect on the UK economy. On the other hand, others say the government is exaggerating the importance/effect on the UK economy and this will not make up for lost EU Trade/Brexit. I think much of the content could be summarized to say that. Some of the other details might still be necessary, others might not be. Perhaps WP:UK or editors at Free trade agreements of the United Kingdom or Brexit could help. It may be that this content (or some of it) is better for an article about the post-Brexit agreements or the transition, and less so about the CPTPP.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pretty poor article that doesn't explain anything[edit]

There's one one brief paragraph about what the treaty does, the rest is the history of negotiations, ratifications, minutae about the commission and a bunch about applicants.ts. 86.8.114.154 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britian in now a member.[edit]

[1] [2] [3] [4]. Can someone expand on the article about how Britian is now a member of the CPTPP? TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership&oldid=1205211093"