This blog is hosted on Ideas on EuropeIdeas on Europe Avatar


Negotiation theory and extending transition

This post originally appeared on the UK in a Changing Europe website.

The return of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings to Number 10 has seen a significant ramping-up of the British rhetoric on the negotiations around the future partnership with the EU.

That’s not merely meant stronger words about refusing an extension of the talks, currently due to end in December, but also the announcement by Michael Gove that there would be no activation of a contingency plan should a deal not happen.

In Gove’s eyes, not extending talks will go hand-in-hand with the coronavirus crisis in ‘focusing minds’ in the EU on getting to an agreement.

But does that stack up? One answer might be found in negotiation theory.

Contrary to popular impressions, real-world negotiations don’t involve rogue individuals, acting on a hunch, or staring the other guy out. It’s not about playing tough, or about compromising, but instead about trying to find better outcomes for all involved.

The easiest way to think about this is that there are some things in the world that are under your control and others – a lot more others, in fact – that are not. A negotiation is a means to achieve a better outcome through agreement with others (who themselves control some things) than you can manage by yourself.

The test of a successful negotiation is therefore not about beating the other side, or about finding an agreement at any price, but about whether all involved have improved their situation, or at least not damaged it.

This central idea shapes a lot of other theory that we don’t need to delve into here, but one aspect that does require discussion is the notion that the key test for any participant is the relative merits of what they can get from an agreement and what they can manage by themselves.

As long as the agreement produces a better outcome than a non-agreement, then it’s rational to pursue the agreement.

Easily said, although it does come with a very big warning that deciding what a ‘better outcome’ means in more specific terms is a very tricky process. However, given that the same is true for the non-agreement outcome too, this is a judgement of which of the two works better for you.

The non-agreement outcome, your fall-back, represents the worst that can happen to you, because it’s all under your control. So working to improve your fall-back means you have a better result from the process, however it goes.

And that means it matters inside the negotiation too. If you can improve your fall-back then you can become more prickly in negotiations, which aren’t under your control, because you have a more attractive alternative.

At the very least, strengthening your fall-back protects you against pushy negotiators from the other side, because you can show them you have an improving alternative. Improve your fall-back enough and you might even be able to ask more of them, because the gains of agreeing become more marginal for you.

In short, a strong contingency matters whatever you’re trying to achieve. If you’re aiming for a deal, it helps you to get a better deal. If you’re going through the motions, then you’re also improving your outcome, because that’s what the contingency does for you.

All of which suggests only two explanations for why the government is not activating its contingency plans. One’s rational and merited; the other is not.

The rational reasoning would be that you have conducting a review of the objectives you’re trying achieve, where the negotiations are at, and what your contingency currently looks like, and that you’ve concluded you are already in an optimal situation.

Even if the negotiation fails – and remember that will never be entirely in your hands – the UK will not suffer at all from that, so no further work is needed.

Given that the almost entire weight of analysis points to a significant disruption to the British economy in a no-deal situation, this must point to a very substantial political or social gains. But even then, it seems odd to be saying that the economic dislocation requires no attention at all.

The second, and much less rational, line of argument would be that the negotiations are a game of chicken. Dumping the contingency plan is akin to throwing away your steering wheel as you hurtle towards the other lot, to demonstrate that you’re set on your course and if any is going to give way, it’ll have to be them.

The UK government knows that the EU would prefer an agreement from this process, so it might be calculating that this will ‘focus minds’.

This is bad negotiating, twice over.

First, it’s based on an assumption that you know what the other side, the EU, wants and needs from this process. Yes, it would like an agreement, but not at any cost. And from the EU’s perspective, non-agreement looks a lot worse for the UK than it does for the EU, so the threat doesn’t look credible.

Second, and coming back to theory once more, the only definite thing that dropping your contingency planning will do is worsen your fall-back. So that’s a definite cost against a possible gain.

There’s a lot to be said for confident politics, but that confidence needs to be grounded in a measured and prudent base. When so much in the world is out of your hands, why wouldn’t you try to make the very best of those things that are?


Recent Articles

Is there a case for not extending transition?

Published on by and | Comments Off on Is there a case for not extending transition?

As much as people talk about Brexit at all right now, much of what you hear is the cry that an extension of the Withdrawal Agreement’s transition period must happen. I’ve not seen a single industry representative, negotiation expert or academic say anything different for the past month, and I’m not about to go against […]

Divertimenti I

Published on by and | Comments Off on Divertimenti I

As many better scholars than me have noted, it’s hard not to get caught up in a social panic. Just I’ve written many posts about “why is anyone thinking about anything but Brexit?”, so I now get to read endless materials about how coronavirus is the only thing that matters. Yesterday’s budget is a case […]

Fade to meh

Published on by and | Comments Off on Fade to meh

Maybe it’s the coronavirus, maybe it’s the floods, maybe it’s the excitement around the Prime Minister’s engagement/child-to-be, but we seem to have largely given up talking about Brexit any more. Sure, there’s debate if you want it, tucked away in the Westminster/Brussels bubble and deep in the inside sections of the paper, but it’s a […]

Must… concentrate… more…

Published on by | Comments Off on Must… concentrate… more…

36 hours. That’s about how long we actually had a wide-spread debate about what’s actually in the Withdrawal Agreement, back when it was agreed late in 2018. Yes, it’s been thrown around in debate ever since, but it was only for that brief window that the substance got a decent sounding and consideration in the […]

The Brexit Cold War

Published on by and | Comments Off on The Brexit Cold War

Change is coming to Brexit. At the end of next week, the UK will leave the European Union, having now completed the passage of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill through the Lords: EU ratification is a given. But there is another, broader change coming too. The constellation of politicians, commentators and journalists who were brought together […]

Settling in for transition

Published on by and | Comments Off on Settling in for transition

Transition remains the Cinderella of Brexit: unnoticed by the ugly sisters of Withdrawal and the New Relationship, but actually rather important. This might have been understandable during the chaos of the past year, when most political efforts were being diverted into securing UK ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, but it seems much less so now, […]

Brexit: What have we learnt so far?

Published on by and | Comments Off on Brexit: What have we learnt so far?

Last week’s election appears to be bringing the first phase of Brexit towards a close. The resounding majority won by the Conservatives sets the door wide open for the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which in turn will result in the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union on 31 January 2020, some four-and-a-half years […]

A short guide to sabotaging the European Union

Published on by and | Comments Off on A short guide to sabotaging the European Union

As we await decisions on extensions and general elections, I thought we might step back and consider the question of how the UK might behave during its remaining time as a member state. In the run-up to the new extension, there was much talk from Leave MPs and activists in Westminster about trying to sabotage […]

Brexit as a process

Published on by and | Comments Off on Brexit as a process

So here we are. Again. It’s autumn, there’s a potential text of a deal on the table, the DUP are holding out, Tory rebels are considering their position, all while the clock ticks. Maybe we all liked it so much last year that’s why we’re doing it all over. Less flippantly, what is striking is […]

This is not the European Council you’re looking for

Published on by and | Comments Off on This is not the European Council you’re looking for

So next Thursday is the crunch day for the Brexit negotiations, apparently. To listen to much of the media and many government ministers, Boris Johnson will roll up to Brussels to bang heads together and get a deal over the line. Unless, of course, he decides not to go at all. To say that the […]

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Meta

  • UACES and Ideas on Europe do not take responsibility for opinions expressed in articles on blogs hosted on Ideas on Europe. All opinions are those of the contributing authors.