Background information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom%E2%80%93United_States_free_trade_agreement
Market resolves according to the date the agreement is effective, not the date it is signed. I'm expecting that if the agreement ever gets signed, the above page will look a bit more like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_Free_Trade_Agreement, in which case I will take the date next to the "effective" field.
If the UK and the US enter into a multilateral FTA that includes other countries, that triggers resolution. If the UK and US enter into a trade agreement that falls short of an FTA, that does not trigger resolution.
Free trade agreements have a pretty universal definition so I don't anticipate any complications in resolution. I will bet in this market.
Feel free to add later years and/or bet on the "other" option. Only answers of the form of a single year will be accepted.
Close date extends as necessary.
Update 2025-05-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided an update on how an agreement will be assessed to determine if it qualifies as a free trade agreement (FTA) for market resolution:
The creator will use their best judgement in cases of ambiguity regarding whether an agreement constitutes a full FTA. This is a shift from the initial expectation that FTAs had a "universal definition".
Sources for information will include mainstream media and Wikipedia.
The creator will look for an agreement to be officially termed a "free trade agreement".
Important clarification: Even if an agreement is officially designated as a "free trade agreement", the creator might not resolve the market based on that agreement if there is significant commentary from economists suggesting it is not a real or comprehensive FTA. This means such an agreement might not be considered the qualifying event this market is looking for, and the market would continue.
Update 2025-05-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Building on the 2025-05-08 update regarding the assessment of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs):
The creator may deem an agreement insufficient to resolve the market if, in their judgment, it is not sufficiently broad and primarily focuses on reducing tariffs for a limited range of products.
This is an example of how the creator will use their best judgement to determine if an agreement, even if officially termed an FTA, qualifies as a real or comprehensive FTA for the purposes of this market. This assessment will be informed by sources like mainstream media and expert commentary.
Update 2025-05-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has further specified how the 'officially termed' status of an agreement as a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) by the involved governments will be assessed:
The creator will primarily examine official documents and communications from the UK and US governments (e.g., White House or gov.uk announcements, USTR.gov fact sheets).
Specific attention will be paid to whether these official government sources explicitly use the words 'free', 'agreement', or 'FTA' when describing the deal.
The presence of the agreement on official lists of FTAs maintained by relevant government bodies (e.g., the USTR's list of Free Trade Agreements) will be a key piece of evidence.
1,000People are also trading
Ok, so Wikipedia is calling the recent deal a Free Trade Agreement.
But: "the agreement falls far short of a comprehensive free trade deal" https://www.politico.eu/article/what-is-and-isnt-included-in-the-uk-us-trade-deal/
And: "This isn't a trade deal" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c15ng4g5g0eo.amp
I'll keep monitoring this to decide whether this counts as an FTA but for now I'm leaning against. It's just reducing tariffs in a few products. FTAs are normally much more broad.
Feel free to post evidence in the comments if you think I've missed something important.
Also, just a reminder that this market only resolves when the agreement is effective, not when it's signed. (Obviously the "not really a trade deal" things that the president can decide can come into effect pretty quickly, but an actual FTA agreed by Congress would probably take longer.)
@Fion I completely understand why you are taking this approach, but I think that it is inviting controversy and potentially opening a can of worms when they announce another "FTA" later which has a lot more depth than this one but somehow still feels like it lacks something.
Personally I would just bite the bullet and say that this is an FTA because the UK and the US are calling it that. Feels a lot more defensible.
(I have sold my stake so that I'm not arguing to get my mana back)
@JoshuaWilkes Are the UK and the US calling it that? I haven't managed to find the corresponding pages from UK Gov, but the US ones don't contain the words "free", "agreement", or "FTA"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-u-s-uk-reach-historic-trade-deal/
And the USTR list of FTAs doesn't mention the UK: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements
Every media outlet I can find calls it a "trade deal" (apart from the ones that go out of their way to say it's not even that: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/08/britain-trade-deal-us-hostage-negotiation)
And the Wikipedia page on the UK-US FTA has been edited to revert to saying it's a "proposed" agreement for which negotiations have been stagnant for several years.
I take your point that there could be controversy in the future if they agree an enhanced agreement that still falls short of a traditional FTA. Maybe we're in an era where "FTA" isn't such a well defined term. But I think we have to cross that bridge if we come to it. I think it's quite clear-cut that the current deal isn't an FTA.
I've sold my stake in non-past options. I'm concerned that the "universal definition" I believed FTAs had might not be as universal as I thought. With trump announcing a limited "trade deal" with the UK, there could be subjective judgement on whether it constitutes a full FTA.
I'll resolve according to my best judgement, but I'll follow the mainstream media and Wikipedia wherever possible. I'll be looking out for the term "free trade agreement". If it's officially called a "free trade agreement" but I see commentary by economists saying it's not a real free trade agreement, I might not resolve.
I'm sorry this isn't very clear. I'll do my best, I've sold my stake, and I'll clarify more if asked. Please don't make big bets if you think you and I might have different interpretations of the facts.
@Fion just to be clear, I do actually think it'll still be clear. I'm just preempting the possibility it won't be