Opinion: Brexit challenges the meaning of ‘political’ reporting

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED OCTOBER 27, 2019 | UPDATED OCTOBER 29, 2019

Some hard-hitting comment has been written recently about the dangers of using of unnamed sources in reporting about Brexit. Less attention has been paid to how the main broadcasters put different aspects of Brexit into separate reporting categories — particularly “politics” — and how this affects the debate.

The two issues are linked, though. The priority given to what the “sources” say colours the meaning of “political” reporting too. Journalists compete to get the scoop instead of providing the most informative coverage. They are not the same.

Five thoughts as Brexit takes a mini-break. Part 2: Dishonesty and trade-offs

By Peter Ungphakorn
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE101.WORLD, APRIL 30, 2019
RE-POSTED HERE MAY 7, 2019 | UPDATED MAY 7, 2019

For months, the United Kingdom’s chaotic efforts to set up its departure from the European Union (Brexit) saw almost daily twists and turns. Tension mounted and the British moved ever closer to crashing over the cliff-edge and out of the EU, with only the flimsiest of parachutes.

This is the second part of five on thoughts on what happened in the last couple of years and on what lies ahead. Several have been discussed before. They all contain new developments:

• after all the frantic to-ing and fro-ing, almost nothing has changed for Britain
• nearly three years of political debate has failed to produce better-informed arguments
• if those past three years were bad, what lies ahead is going to be worse
• Theresa May’s handling has been disastrous but she might still get what she wants — just
• simplistic definitions of democracy and sovereignty are unhelpful

2. Dishonesty and a failure to recognise trade-offs

Caught up in a war — the WTO and Brexit

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED APRIL 6, 2019 | UPDATED JUNR 6, 2019

For some it’s “no deal” — a Brexit with nothing agreed between the UK and EU. Others prefer to hide that by calling it “leaving the EU on WTO terms”. What does that mean?

These are slides from a presentation given at Chatham House, London on March 11, 2019, looking at some of the implications.

One last go. The Article 24 red herring in less than 400 words. Think ‘highway code’

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 16, 2019 | UPDATED FEBRUARY 16, 2019

They still don’t understand. Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is still being pushed as a silver bullet to solve “no deal” Brexit.

“Article 24 […] is a simple, temporary basic free trade agreement (FTA) between UK and EU which allows tariffs and quotas to continue at zero whilst a full and comprehensive FTA is negotiated instead,” is a typical and very recent claim.

GATT Article 24 is nothing of the kind. The claim has been debunked over and over and over and over and over. Still the message hasn’t got through.

So here it is again, this time in less than 400 words.

The myth of a 10-year grace period, Brexit and trade talks with the EU

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED DECEMBER 27, 2018 | UPDATED JULY 3, 2019

It’s not often that hard Brexiters make WTO rules more complicated than they need to be.

Usually their error is to over-simplify.

But the mistaken identity of interim free trade agreements in the WTO is one rare instance.

The idea had apparently been knocking around for some time, at least back to March 2017 in a Politico article.

It reappeared back in May 2018, when Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg claimed on television that WTO rules allow the UK a 10-year grace period to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU.

Standards, regulations and trade in goods — a primer

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 | UPDATED AUGUST 29, 2023
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON UK TRADE FORUM, MAY 8, 2018

“Standards” and “regulations” are critically important for trade and have entered the public discussion about Britain’s future trade relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. But what are they? Are they the same? Are they compulsory or voluntary?

This is an attempt to explain as simply as possible how they work in international trade. And to keep it simple, it only deals with standards for goods — key, for example, to what happens on the Irish border after the UK leaves the EU — even though standards also exist in services.

Does the WTO require countries to control their borders?

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JULY 18, 2018 | UPDATED JULY 19, 2018

On Monday (July 16), MP Anna Soubry launched a vigorous attack in the House of Commons against hard-line Brexiters. There was a lot of truth in what she said, except on one point.

She turned to the likelihood that if the UK simply trades with the EU on WTO terms, and without an adequate form of free trade agreement, it will have to impose border controls on trade between the Republic of Ireland and the North.

WTO “rules say every member must secure their borders,” she said.

It’s a commonly-held view.