Are you like me ? Are you exasperated by how the Brexit negotiation is playing out. Are you concerned about the "deal" we will end up with. Do you think we are shooting ourselves in the foot?
The UK has democratically voted to leave the EU. The leave process has been triggered. We are now in theory in the middle of a negotiation to determine the terms of leaving and terms of the future ongoing relationship. The process has proved torturous. The Prime Minister and her negotiating team have been undermined throughout and their negotiating position weakened by amongst others, out and out anti democratic remoaners (who want to overturn the decision), so called "soft " Brexiteer MP's (who are obsessed with terms of trade - but inadvertently are undermining the prospect of getting good ones), those particularly focused on "Parliamentary Sovereignty" and insistence on a meaningful parliamentary vote on the "terms" - and by the Opposition parties and the media playing political games. Some are motivated by a political strategy to overturn and frustrate the leave decision. However in my view many are just misguided. They are naïve or ignorant in the art of negotiation. In this short blog I am focusing on naivety/ignorance which has been manifest.
Back to basics. The UK and EU are in a negotiation over leave terms. The EU negotiators are striving to get a deal most favourable to them. We should want a deal most favourable to us. It can be dressed up as we all want there to be winners - or that that the EU does not want to punish the UK but of course that is rubbish. Lets get real.
There are 3 basic points I want to make :
Here is the first - a sort of parable - it might be helpful :-
When I was a young teenager I was visiting my aunt and uncle who had a garage business down in south Devon. While I was there my uncle received a call from a customer (I will refer to him as Mr Hardnut). Would he come and look at a car that the Mr Hardnut was negotiating to buy? We went to have a look at it. It was a white convertible E Type Jaguar. If you know anything about cars you will know it as a "super car" something exceptional - a very expensive car - but like all super cars probably not very practical and therefore of limited market. What played out has stuck with me - it was a lesson learned. The car owner was a young man who had advertised the car nationally. He had agreed to bring the car down from London to south Devon for Mr Hardnut to inspect and buy - over 150 miles - a 300 mile round trip. It also became apparent he was keen to sell because he was getting married and needed the money. His fiancé was with him. Hardnut played it cool. Steely eyed. He liked the car but not that much - he was prepared to walk away unless the price was right. (although my uncle knew he really wanted it.) The youngman was evidently desperate to sell. He had gone to so much effort to bring the car down to Devon and the young fiancé had undermined his negotiating position further by emphasising how much they wanted the sell in order to fund the forthcoming wedding. To coin a phrase Mr Hardnut "had them over a barrel" and the negotiated price tumbled. I remember the final scenario clearly because it was brutal and there were tears. Hardnut made a final offer and started to walk away. The youngman said "no way" - and his fiancé started crying. Before Hardnut left they had accepted his offer. Hardnut had got a tremendous deal.
So the lesson there if I have to spell it out - unless the other side believe you are prepared to walk away - they have you over a barrel.
The second. Another basic point. Theresa May and David Davis are continually criticised and pressured for not stating exactly what we want from the negotiations - and particularly to set out our "red lines" - our musts or must not haves - things that are non negotiable. David Davis (I believe to be a very experienced businessman and a tough and subtle negotiator) says if you set out your red lines the most you will get will ONLY be your red lines. He is so right. It is commonsense. What is the motivation for the other side to give you more? They won't. It is folly to be too open - too specific. Negotiation is a chess game. It is quite legitimate for instance to ask for one thing but really working towards getting something else bearing in mind the objective is to get the most favourable deal possible. (but the shallow media and political opponents will carp and criticise the government failed to get what it said it wanted). A well known cricket metaphor from the late Sir Geoffrey Howe - "it is like being sent out to open the batting - only to find the bat has been broken before you get started."! The Government are right in not stating exactly what they want at the outset. Those that are pressuring them to do so are either naïve, ignorant or willfully ignorant (to deliberately sabotage Brexit).
My final point is the insistence by some MP's that they have a "meaningful vote" on the acceptance of the terms and particularly whether to walk away from the negotiation. The problem with this insistence is so obvious - so basically flawed - it can only be a deliberate attempt to thwart the decision of the British people and keep us in the EU. (therefore it is dangerously anti democratic.) I explain. The EU would prefer to keep us in the club. They do not want us to leave. It weakens the EU - and as a massive net contributor our money will be badly missed. If Parliament will not accept no deal is better than a bad deal - what incentive does the EU have to agree a good deal for us. It clearly is in their interest not to offer us a good deal - ie only offer us a bad deal - if they know Parliament will not let our negotiators walk away.- and therefore by default we stay in! With regard a meaningful vote on the terms - it is bonkers Parliament insists it is the de facto negotiator with the EU. That cannot work. The Government has to be trusted to get the best deal they can and if Parliament doesn't like it we must walk away. That is the only way we will have any chance of getting the Brexit deal we want.
Unfortunately many of out MP's are like Dominic Greive - an academic - a professional politician - and clueless and naïve it what it takes to be successful in negotiation.
The UK has democratically voted to leave the EU. The leave process has been triggered. We are now in theory in the middle of a negotiation to determine the terms of leaving and terms of the future ongoing relationship. The process has proved torturous. The Prime Minister and her negotiating team have been undermined throughout and their negotiating position weakened by amongst others, out and out anti democratic remoaners (who want to overturn the decision), so called "soft " Brexiteer MP's (who are obsessed with terms of trade - but inadvertently are undermining the prospect of getting good ones), those particularly focused on "Parliamentary Sovereignty" and insistence on a meaningful parliamentary vote on the "terms" - and by the Opposition parties and the media playing political games. Some are motivated by a political strategy to overturn and frustrate the leave decision. However in my view many are just misguided. They are naïve or ignorant in the art of negotiation. In this short blog I am focusing on naivety/ignorance which has been manifest.
Back to basics. The UK and EU are in a negotiation over leave terms. The EU negotiators are striving to get a deal most favourable to them. We should want a deal most favourable to us. It can be dressed up as we all want there to be winners - or that that the EU does not want to punish the UK but of course that is rubbish. Lets get real.
There are 3 basic points I want to make :
Here is the first - a sort of parable - it might be helpful :-
When I was a young teenager I was visiting my aunt and uncle who had a garage business down in south Devon. While I was there my uncle received a call from a customer (I will refer to him as Mr Hardnut). Would he come and look at a car that the Mr Hardnut was negotiating to buy? We went to have a look at it. It was a white convertible E Type Jaguar. If you know anything about cars you will know it as a "super car" something exceptional - a very expensive car - but like all super cars probably not very practical and therefore of limited market. What played out has stuck with me - it was a lesson learned. The car owner was a young man who had advertised the car nationally. He had agreed to bring the car down from London to south Devon for Mr Hardnut to inspect and buy - over 150 miles - a 300 mile round trip. It also became apparent he was keen to sell because he was getting married and needed the money. His fiancé was with him. Hardnut played it cool. Steely eyed. He liked the car but not that much - he was prepared to walk away unless the price was right. (although my uncle knew he really wanted it.) The youngman was evidently desperate to sell. He had gone to so much effort to bring the car down to Devon and the young fiancé had undermined his negotiating position further by emphasising how much they wanted the sell in order to fund the forthcoming wedding. To coin a phrase Mr Hardnut "had them over a barrel" and the negotiated price tumbled. I remember the final scenario clearly because it was brutal and there were tears. Hardnut made a final offer and started to walk away. The youngman said "no way" - and his fiancé started crying. Before Hardnut left they had accepted his offer. Hardnut had got a tremendous deal.
So the lesson there if I have to spell it out - unless the other side believe you are prepared to walk away - they have you over a barrel.
The second. Another basic point. Theresa May and David Davis are continually criticised and pressured for not stating exactly what we want from the negotiations - and particularly to set out our "red lines" - our musts or must not haves - things that are non negotiable. David Davis (I believe to be a very experienced businessman and a tough and subtle negotiator) says if you set out your red lines the most you will get will ONLY be your red lines. He is so right. It is commonsense. What is the motivation for the other side to give you more? They won't. It is folly to be too open - too specific. Negotiation is a chess game. It is quite legitimate for instance to ask for one thing but really working towards getting something else bearing in mind the objective is to get the most favourable deal possible. (but the shallow media and political opponents will carp and criticise the government failed to get what it said it wanted). A well known cricket metaphor from the late Sir Geoffrey Howe - "it is like being sent out to open the batting - only to find the bat has been broken before you get started."! The Government are right in not stating exactly what they want at the outset. Those that are pressuring them to do so are either naïve, ignorant or willfully ignorant (to deliberately sabotage Brexit).
My final point is the insistence by some MP's that they have a "meaningful vote" on the acceptance of the terms and particularly whether to walk away from the negotiation. The problem with this insistence is so obvious - so basically flawed - it can only be a deliberate attempt to thwart the decision of the British people and keep us in the EU. (therefore it is dangerously anti democratic.) I explain. The EU would prefer to keep us in the club. They do not want us to leave. It weakens the EU - and as a massive net contributor our money will be badly missed. If Parliament will not accept no deal is better than a bad deal - what incentive does the EU have to agree a good deal for us. It clearly is in their interest not to offer us a good deal - ie only offer us a bad deal - if they know Parliament will not let our negotiators walk away.- and therefore by default we stay in! With regard a meaningful vote on the terms - it is bonkers Parliament insists it is the de facto negotiator with the EU. That cannot work. The Government has to be trusted to get the best deal they can and if Parliament doesn't like it we must walk away. That is the only way we will have any chance of getting the Brexit deal we want.
Unfortunately many of out MP's are like Dominic Greive - an academic - a professional politician - and clueless and naïve it what it takes to be successful in negotiation.
No comments:
Post a Comment