In addition to expanding and revising the terms of the GATT, these negotiations have resulted in the adoption of numerous new multilateral treaties on trade in services, international treatment of intellectual property and the creation of the WTO, in order to settle all these agreements and settle disputes between members. The WTO would succeed THE GATT as a global framework for international trade following the Uruguay Round and came into force in 1995. In 1986, the URUGUAY Round GATT negotiations began, in charge of revising and updating the provisions of the original agreement, in view of the increase in international trade and the globalization of the world economy. Agriculture has been essentially excluded from previous agreements, as it has been granted special status in the areas of import quotas and export subsidies, with slight reserves. However, at the time of the Uruguay Round, many countries considered the agricultural exception so egregious that they refused to sign a new no-move agreement for agricultural products. These fourteen countries were known as the “Cairns Group” and consisted mainly of small and medium-sized agricultural exporters such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia and New Zealand. The aim of the GATT was to create rules to end or limit the most costly and undesirable features of the pre-war protectionist era, namely quantitative barriers to trade, such as trade controls and quotas. The agreement also provided for a system for resolving trade disputes between states and had introduced a framework for a series of multilateral negotiations on the removal of customs barriers. This statement served as the basis for the so-called “Malthouse Compromise” between conservative parties on how to replace the withdrawal agreement.  However, this plan was rejected by Parliament.  The assertion that Article 24 could be used was also adopted by Boris Johnson during his 2019 campaign as leader of the Conservative Party. The assertion that Article 24 could be used in this way has been criticized as unrealistic by Mark Carney, Liam Fox and others, as point 5c of the contract requires an agreement between the parties so that Article 5b can be useful, since there would be no agreement in the case of a non-agreement scenario. In addition, critics of the GATT 24 approach point out that services would not fall under such regulation.
  However, this part of the result was not authorized by Congress, and the U.S. selling price was abolished only when Congress passed the results of the Tokyo Round. The results in agriculture as a whole have been poor. The most notable achievement was the agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding on the basic elements for the arrangement of global subsidies, which was eventually incorporated into a new international agreement on cereals. The Uruguay Round Agricultural Agreement remains the most important agreement in the history of trade negotiations for the liberalisation of agricultural trade. The aim of the agreement was to improve market access for agricultural products, reduce national aid to agriculture in the form of price-distorting subsidies and quotas, eliminate agricultural export subsidies over time and harmonize health and plant health measures among Member States as much as possible. Following the UK`s vote to leave the European Union, proponents of leaving the European Union proposed that Article 24, paragraph 5B of the treaty could be used to maintain a “stalemate” in trade conditions between the UK and the EU if the UK left the EU without a trade deal, thereby preventing the imposition of tariffs. Proponents of this approach believe that it could be used to implement an interim agreement until a final agreement of up to ten years is negotiated.
 In addition to facilitating applied tariff reductions, GATT`s contribution to trade liberalization involves “the commitment of tariff reductions negotiated for a longer period (which became more sustainable in 1955),