Read on Twitter
1/ It's Friday night. I'm drinking cider. Let's talk about end-of-negotiation dynamics between Chief Negotiators and Politicians...
... because they're kind of ridiculous. https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1332379402198523904
... because they're kind of ridiculous. https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1332379402198523904
2/ Just like the EU-UK FTA has right now, trade negotiation typically get to a point where they are 95% completed but stuck on the last 5%.
That's because the last 5% contains the issues on which the Chief Negotiators have instructions from leaders not to compromise. At all.
That's because the last 5% contains the issues on which the Chief Negotiators have instructions from leaders not to compromise. At all.
3/ This is always incredibly obvious in the negotiating room, and is often pretty bloody clear outside it.
Michel Barnier clearly doesn't have a mandate to say, "You know what, forget the fish let's just sign" and Frost isn't allowed to just OK the EU's LPF.
They have orders.
Michel Barnier clearly doesn't have a mandate to say, "You know what, forget the fish let's just sign" and Frost isn't allowed to just OK the EU's LPF.
They have orders.
4/ So a round ends, where Barnier and Frost's teams made progress on the other stuff, but got nowhere on the core issues.
They brief their respective bosses and say, "We can't solve this at our level, what do you want to do?"
They brief their respective bosses and say, "We can't solve this at our level, what do you want to do?"
5/ Politicians at this point have three options:
Make the politically painful choice to compromise, changing their instructions to Barnier/Frost;
Make the politically risky choice to declare it's hopeless and pull out of the talks.
Send negotiators back in and hope.
Make the politically painful choice to compromise, changing their instructions to Barnier/Frost; Make the politically risky choice to declare it's hopeless and pull out of the talks. Send negotiators back in and hope.
6/ Politicians never want to do or , and so opt for . Over and over.
They send negotiators back with the same instructions as before, hoping either some magical solution removing the need to compromise emerges, or the other side blinks so they don't have to.
or , and so opt for . Over and over.They send negotiators back with the same instructions as before, hoping either some magical solution removing the need to compromise emerges, or the other side blinks so they don't have to.
7/ Every additional round they do this, the talks themselves become increasingly ridiculous as the negotiators literally run out of other things to talk about.
At some point, they've got agreed language on everything except the points their political masters disagree on.
At some point, they've got agreed language on everything except the points their political masters disagree on.
8/ In an ordinary negotiation, this kind of status quo can go on indefinitely and apart from lost opportunity there's no real harm done.
Regular FTA's are an improvement of a trade relationship, not a desperate rear-guard salvage mission.
Regular FTA's also have no time limit.
Regular FTA's are an improvement of a trade relationship, not a desperate rear-guard salvage mission.
Regular FTA's also have no time limit.
9/ The EU-UK FTA talks are different.
Time is ticking.
Unless they compromise soon the two sides are simply going to run out of runway for sending negotiators in hoping a miracle happens or the other side capitulates...
... and there are livelihoods at stake.
/end
Time is ticking.
Unless they compromise soon the two sides are simply going to run out of runway for sending negotiators in hoping a miracle happens or the other side capitulates...
... and there are livelihoods at stake.
/end
