This definition defines virtually all public services as “commercial” and already covers areas such as the police, the military, prisons, justice, public administration and government. In a relatively short period of time, this could apply to the privatization or commercialization of a large part, and perhaps to all those who are now considered public services that are currently considered social requirements for the entire population of a country, structured, marketed, under-distributed to for-profit suppliers and ultimately fully privatized and are only available to those who can pay the price. This process is currently well advanced in most countries, usually (and deliberately) without properly informing the public or consulting whether this is what they want or not. The Uruguay Round Agricultural Agreement remains the most important agreement in the history of trade negotiations on 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. The expansion of trade in services has great prospects, although countries are generally reluctant to liberalize them. According to the WTO, “services currently account for more than 60% of world output and employment, but they account for no more than 20% of total trade (BOP base).” The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a legal agreement between many countries whose overall objective was to promote international trade by removing or removing trade barriers, such as tariffs or quotas. According to its preamble, its objective was to “substantially reduce tariffs and other trade barriers and eliminate mutually beneficial and reciprocal preferences.” 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.