The problem with "No Deal."

I'm inclined to agree with the government that, although "No deal" should not be their negotiating objective while trying to agree a new relationship with the EU as Britain prepares to leave, ruling it out completely would undercut our negotiating position.

However, the difficulties involved in leaving the EU with no agreement of any sort about what Britian's relationship with the remaining members of the organisation would be immense.

Disentangling a 43-year relationship was always going to be an incredibly complicated job and anyone who thought it was going to run smoothly was as foolishly overoptimistic as those who suggest that a "no deal" Brexit would be no problem at all are being now.

David Davis obviously understands this, to judge by his answers yesterday when interviewed by the Brexit select committee as described here.

Incidentally, I disagree with most of Ian Dunt's editorial comments in the article just linked to. However what the article does quite well is give some of the reasons why, as David Davis explained to the committee, the idea that it would a good thing for either side if Britain left the EU without some form of agreement on a whole raft of issues is "off the scale" improbable.

When the government says that they won't completely rule out a "no deal" option it is a little bit more than the negotiating ploy it is sometimes presented as being by the opposition or certain elements in the media.

As I understand the article linked to above, when the UK government say that "no deal is better than a bad deal" they mean that they won't hand over large sums of British taxpayer's cash above and beyond what the UK is already committed to pay in exchange for a trade deal unless the trade deal is worth it. They are not threatening to walk away from the talks altogether, and in my opinion they are right not to make that threat because it would not be credible.

What stops me from being very rude indeed about the people who are jumping up and down saying what a great idea it would be if Britain walked away from talks with the EU and deliberately abandoned any plans to get a deal, is that it's just possible that rather than actually being stupid enough to believe what they are saying, their words are part of a plan to make the EU think there is strong pressure on the UK government to walk away. The idea being to make EU negotiators less likely to make unreasonable demands on the British government if they think that such demands are more likely to result in a "no deal" outcome which would be bad for everyone.

To be honest I see that as a variant of the Kruschev "bang your shoe on the table to frighten the other side and make them think you're irrational" strategy.

There are occasions when the "bang your shoe on the table" strategy works but it does depend on the temperament of the people you are negotiating with. Harold MacMillan is supposed to have simply looked round at the interpreters and said "I wonder if I might have that translated?"

Trouble is, as the Greeks can tell you to their cost, the EU is quite good at calling people's bluff. I think it's wiser to play these negotiations with a straight bat and be open about the fact that ending up with no deal is not an outcome we want. Otherwise they'll just be even more inclined to think Britain has gone mad than many of them are already.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nick Herbert on his visit to flood hit areas of Cumbria

Quotes of the day 19th August 2020

Quote of the day 24th July 2020