Talk:Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement

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

major issue with this article[edit]

Fix the External link of "Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits" to "Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council", because the former does not have website, and the original link toward it points to a website providing one-side opinion on China-Taiwan relation. The change to Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council is appropriate since the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits is directly under control by the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council. Yaulaannl (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the original article was 2008 Taiwan-Mainland Cross Straits Economic Pact, this dealt with the opening of the Taiwanese economy such as the three links. That article was fine.

Some people got confused and thought it was the ECFA. The ECFA hasn't been signed, it is a proposed comprehensive economic framework. This article shouldn't be about the ECFA 2008 because the 2008 Taiwan-Mainland Cross Straits Economic Pact wasn't an ECFA but more of a general agreement in opening up transport links.

To remedy the situation, I think the 2008 Taiwan-Mainland Cross Straits Economic Pact must be re-instated and the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement should be where the info about the proposed agreement should be residing in. --Visik (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the 2008 Taiwan-Mainland Cross Straits Economic Pact.
Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement 2008 needs to be moved to [[Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement as the agreement is still under negotiations and it wasn't signed in 2008.

--Visik (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I tried to verify information using the sources provided for the "2008 Taiwan-Mainland Cross Straits Economic Pact" page, but of the two source the first was talking about the "Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement" and the second was just making general comments about how desperate Ma is to integration Taiwan with China. If you want to restore the article, find some better and more precise sources. Also, unless there is a source for the name "Taiwan-Mainland Cross Straits Economic Pact", we need to use a more neutral description such as "Taiwan-Mainland China Cross Straits Economic Pact" or simply "Cross Straits Economic Pact". Readin (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The English in this article is atrocious. It badly needs to be cleaned up. 84.154.104.46 (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Yin-wen[edit]

To be translated:

http://www1.voanews.com/chinese/news/DDP-chairperson-Tsai-meets-with-foreign-press-2010429-92404129.html

她说，签订ECFA后，台湾会越来越依赖大陆， 其他国家和台湾的贸易量会减少，也就更没有兴趣和台湾商讨自由贸易协定了。

她说，因为有 WTO协定，现在台湾产品在大陆并没有受到关税歧视，而且台湾的主要竞争者韩国和日本也并没有和大陆签订自由贸易协定，所以不存在签订ECFA的紧迫性: " 当你的主要竞争者，日本和韩国和中国没有FTA(自由贸易协定)的时候，有这么急吗? 。"

POV[edit]

The Background section contained some unnecessary POV statements. I've cleaned it up but the article could really use a complete overhaul. --Ben Applegate (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it????[edit]

It would really help to explain what the ECFA entails. Without that, the whole article is superfluous. -- BsBsBs (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trade agreement. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I figured that much. Next question: What's in the agreement? -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The People's Republic of China uses its influence on neighboring economic powers to prevent them from signing FTAs with the Republic of China.[2][3] Instead, under the leadership of the Kuomintang, the government of the Republic of China is attempting to sign the ECFA with mainland China, partly in hope that once it has this agreement the PRC will stop pressuring other countries to avoid such agreements with the ROC. Though the text of the agreement has not been publicly released, it is expected to follow the structure of the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangements mainland China has signed with Special Administrative Regions Hong Kong and Macau. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading this right? There is a huge controversy about a trade agreement, but nobody seems to know what's in it? -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is more or less a free trade agreement, but the controversy around it has to do with calling it a free trade agreement, so we cannot simply summarise it by saying that it is a free trade agreement. If you want to know what the details within the ECFA itself, maybe you can do some research and add to the article. The reason most of the content of the article is about the controversy is because this agreement is notable for its controversy more than anything else. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, nobody else, beside Ma Yin-jeou and the Mainland Chinese, know the exact details of this ECFA, and all the detail discussions during those pre-ECFA talks were all been kept secrete from the public, and the opposition. Exactly what Ma Yin-zeou is trying to hide, is anyone's guess. Arilang1234.
I think officials from both sides are still negotiating the details of the agreement. That's one reason why it hasn't been publicised. But I'm pretty sure there will be a reduction of tariffs on both sides, because that's a standard in free trade agreements. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The details are out, but unless you can read Chinese it's not going to do you much good. If you can though, it's here. http://www.ecfa.org.tw/RelatedDoc.aspx

(RollingWave (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

criticism section[edit]

need something there, there were protests in Taiwan against this agreement (possible china?)Lihaas (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this document, exactly?[edit]

By that question, I'm not asking about the content of the agreement -- I mean the nature of the document itself. It's obviously not a treaty, because neither government recognizes the other as legitimate. In fact, both (officially) view the other as a renegade government in control of part of the other's territory. So how are these clashing viewpoints massaged in the document? --Jfruh (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I doubt that is even mentioned. Since there is already substantial trade between the two entities, and a structure to either forbid certain goods or impose tariffs on the goods that are permitted, an agreement would just allow certain goods to pass and lower the tariffs on other that were already passing. Abductive (reasoning) 06:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the various google news sources The opponents of the ECFA in Taiwan are saying it is not a treaty but an agreement. A treaty can only be signed by two sovereign states. But in the article, I can see Pact being used as a neutral term. President Ma is referring to the agreement as a quasi treaty and to treat it as formal treaty even though its signed by official quasi orgs. [1]
Visik (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ambiguous abbreviations[edit]

I'm just a casual reader (I don't edit), and I had some issues understanding the abbreviations found in this article. Possibly link the first instance of each abbreviation to a relevant article (such as FTA to Free Trade Agreement, or whatever it is)?

98.115.222.41 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts[edit]

This version

  • The "Background" section is not really background, other than its first sentence (The government of the People's Republic of China uses its influence on neighboring economic powers to prevent them from signing free-trade agreements (FTAs) with Taiwan.).
  • The article seems to be almost entirely about the ROC reaction to the agreement; little is said about the PRC.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its going to take time for the dust to settle as the agreement was signed so recently, then there will be more articles on it to write up a proper background section with the history. Separate sections in the issues would be necessary as more information comes on board.
Visik (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol[edit]

a preferential trade agreement between the governments of the People's Republic of China (mainland China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan)

i dont see any of those governments signing anything, i see 2 semi official bodies, be them ARATS and MAC, signing it, but keep pushing ur agendas, that wont change realities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.114.56 (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_Cooperation_Framework_Agreement&oldid=1196369792"