I haven’t made any attempt to hide my opinion that Britain would have done a lot better to stay in the EU, and this is something that I have been feeling steadily more strongly as the story unfolds. There have been quite a few things that have come up where I’ve realised I had no idea how important staying in the EU was. In fact although I did vote the way I would vote if the issue came up again, I don’t really think I had given it enough thought last time.
But despite being firmly on the pro-EU side of the debate, I still want Britain to have an effective negotiation for the process of leaving. I am pretty sure we’ll be back in quite soon but that doesn’t mean we can neglect the details of how we will cope while we are out. There are two aspects to this. One is the perfectly rational one whereby the terms of our arrangements with our largest trading partner have a large bearing on day to day business. We should obviously strive to get them as well set up as can be contrived. There is also the more emotional one - if my national team is in a game I want them to win. So I wish the UK negotiating team the best of luck.
The trouble is that they seem to have done their level best to put themselves into a position where only luck can save them from their lack of judgement.
This was brought home to me very forcefully by an article I came across online that suggested a completely different negotiating strategy from the one that has actually been adopted. Don’t go in with the idea that we start from the status quo, it says. Assume that the default position is the WTO option - the one that is often referred to as no deal. So we turn up in Brussels with an outline of just how this no deal is going to play out. We then offer to look at what opportunities there are for mutual benefits from putting in place extra arrangements on top of these.
The article is written from the point of view of a professional negotiator and it sounds very convincing. But aside from the technical advantages that somebody who does this for a living can see in terms of gaining a better outcome, it is also psychologically a lot more appealing. He we are, this is what we plan to do. But we are happy to discuss things and agree anything that makes sense. If it were backed up with some well thought out proposals it would make Britain a serious partner, or potential partner, who knows what it wants.
The ideal time to deploy this strategy would have been on the afternoon of the day after the vote. That would have created the frame for the negotiations and would have given Britain the initiative from day one. The EU would have at the very least been caught off its guard and would not have been able to completely control the agenda as has happened as a result of the six month hiatus.
Who knows if it would have worked. I have a feeling it has something of the Schliefen Plan about it. The Germans’ plan to win the first world war in a matter of months by a bold attack directed straight at Paris was probably doomed even before the ink hit the paper. But it did nonetheless have a chance of winning. If they had had no plan at all they would have faced certain defeat.
Trade talks aren’t wars of course and it is still possible that the outcome of the negotiations won’t be too harmful. But the opportunity of using them to show ourselves in a good light has been lost.
http://commentcentral.co.uk/the-dummies-guide-to-negotiating-with-the-eu/
No comments:
Post a Comment