In addition, critics of the GATT 24 approach point out that services would not be covered by such regulation.   In May 1963, ministers agreed on three negotiating objectives for the Round: when the Dillon Round completed the laborious process of individual customs negotiations, it became clear well before the end of the Round that a more comprehensive approach was needed to meet the challenges arising from the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC) and EFTA. as well as the resurgence of Europe as an important international trader in general. The Uruguay Round of agriculture remains the most important agreement in the history of trade negotiations to liberalize trade in agricultural products. The objective of the agreement was to improve market access for agricultural products, reduce domestic support for agriculture in the form of price-distorting subsidies and quotas, remove export subsidies for agricultural products over time and harmonise sanitary and phytosanitary measures between Member States as much as possible. In the end, the result was an average tariff reduction of 35%, with the exception of textiles, chemicals, steel and other sensitive products; plus a reduction in tariffs on agri-food products from 15% to 18%. In addition, the negotiations on chemicals resulted in a provisional agreement on the abolition of the US selling price (ASP). This was a method of valuation of certain chemicals used by these countries for the imposition of import duties, which allowed domestic producers to benefit from a much higher level of protection than that indicated in the customs regulations. For the most part, agriculture has been excluded from previous agreements, as it has been granted special status in the areas of import quotas and export subsidies, with slight reservations. However, at the time of the Uruguay Round, many countries felt that the exception for agriculture was so blatant that they refused to sign a new agreement without agricultural products without movement. These fourteen countries were known as the “Cairns Group” and consisted mainly of small and medium-medium-largest agricultural exporters such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia and New Zealand. However, this part of the result was banned by Congress and the US selling price was only abolished when Congress adopted the results of the Tokyo Round.
Performance across agriculture has been poor. The most notable success was the agreement on a memorandum of understanding on fundamental elements for the negotiation of a global subsidy arrangement, which was eventually included in a new international agreement on cereals. Following the UK`s vote to leave the European Union, supporters of leaving the EU proposed that Article 24(5B) of the Treaty could be used to maintain an “impasse” in trade conditions between the UK and the EU if the UK leaves the EU without a trade deal, thus preventing the introduction of tariffs. . . .