@AlexanderTheGreater - does signing a political declaration count (i.e. concluding the substantive negotiations) or does the actual, final FTA itself have to be signed, for a Yes resolution?

@SacredChicken the actual FTA has to be signed.

@AlexanderTheGreater so sign but not ratify correct?

I need more clarity on what exactly is signed. A deal could be signed between parties, signed intracountry, ratified, etc.

@prismatic yes, ratification would be close to impossible

@prismatic @AlexanderTheGreater I'm betting NO based on the expectation that the actual FTA text won't be finalised for the ceremony next week i.e. that the signing will just be a political declaration (a "conclusion of negotiations") to say the substance of the negotiations have been completed, but not a signing of the actual FTA itself. It'll likely take several months for the "legal scrubbing" and translations to be completed, to allow the FTA itself to be signed.

There's an interesting contrast with the EU-Mercosur ITA, which was signed by the EU a few weeks ago. In that case, the signing was of the actual, final treaty, potentially allowing for ratification. The EU-India deal is not at that stage yet. Assuming the final chapters are fully agreed and there are no last minute disagreements, that doesn't mean the FTA itself will be ready to sign in the days ahead. The steps for the EU-India deal are: conclusion of negotiations (next week), legal scrubbing and translation, EU Council approval, then FTA signing, then the ratification process (European Parliament, etc.). Whereas the Mercosur deal is in that final stage. (That's why the EU-Mercosur ITA could now legally go ahead provisionally, whereas the EU-India FTA will not yet be ready for provisional application.)

My impression is that both sides would have liked to have a final text by now, but there were delays e.g. on carbon. And we've seen from the Mercosur deal that just because the two sides say that negotiations are concluded, doesn't mean there won't be last-minute haggling.

@SacredChicken yeah I bought yes on the exact opposite thinking because there wasn’t detail provided in the resolution. I think changing resolution for more specificity after the fact is kind of misleading and would want someone refund for my trade if the market de creator decides to go with your point of view

@traders @prismatic & @SacredChicken mh. I think you both convinced me that I underestimated the complexity when I created the market and thus underspecified the criteria. Does anyone see a fair solution other than resolving NA?

@AlexanderTheGreater like not really. NA is fine by me

@AlexanderTheGreater I agree this isn't 100%, absolutely clear, which is why I asked for clarification. But it's also not 50/50. The title, and the text, and the clarification, all indicated clearly the market is about the FTA - not the closure of negotiations, and not ratification, which are distinct from the finalisation and signing of the FTA. (This isn't a semantic technicality; they're genuinely different parts of the process, with actual real-world consequences for businesses.) Would you consider a probability result, something like 20% Yes, 80% No?

Thank you for the quick and calm responses. I look forward to future versions of this market! I'm glad I asked about this today, instead of this uncertainty arising in a few weeks.

I'd also welcome hearing from any other participant in this market who has a view on how best to resolve.

@AlexanderTheGreater I think that the market title and description have been pretty clear from the beginning and would not welcome NAing the market on the grounds that “signing the FTA” has been misunderstood by some traders. Traders can always ask for clarification prior to placing a bet.

Besides, there’s still time left before March 1st for things to happen! NAing now would make no sense

@SacredChicken @creator i would agree with NA, it seems a bit unclear, and that seems fairest

@aleven I disagree with the idea that the onus to ask questions should be on traders to clarify an objectively bad resolution. The burden should be on the MC write an unambiguous resolution, because traders can’t realistically anticipate every latent ambiguity before betting. Since this resolution relies on specialized institutional distinctions that aren’t spelled out, NA is the fairest outcome rather than retroactively penalizing reasonable interpretations.

@prismatic said much more eloquently than myself

When you've got EU leaders booking flights to New Delhi for a specific date and 20 out of 24 chapters done, the political cost of failure gets really high