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

If we’re to understand the Brexit talks, the media must do better than this

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED APRIL 1, 2017 | UPDATED APRIL 1, 2017

Perhaps we should not be surprised, but should we be concerned? After Donald Tusk presented the EU–27’s draft negotiating guidelines for Brexit on March 31, 2017, the headlines showed widely different interpretations.

They ranged from fact and conciliation to confrontation and capitulation, all based on the same document:

Three thoughts on the Brexit referendum

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JUNE 29, 2016 | UPDATED JUNE 29, 2016

The UK has entered fantasyland after the June 23, 2016 vote to leave the European Union.

We can all fantasise.