Thread by @Usherwood

Some comments on 'concessions':

1/

One of the side themes of this week has been HMG loudly underlining that now they've moved, it's time for the EU to move too on Brexit

2/

This is classic positional bargaining: I set a starting point, you set yours and then we move towards each other

3/

That works for some things - like when you're trying to get some extra off those nice olives they sell at the farmers market - not less so for other things, including Brexit

4/

Negotiation theory points to the centrality of underlying interests: the 'why' behind the 'what', if you like

5/

These are typically grounded in values and concepts, not in facts and figures. So stuff like 'security', 'happiness' or 'stability'

6/

The reason for placing your interests centrally is precisely because you can achieve them in multiple ways

7/

The more ways you can generate, the more likelihood you can find one that also satisfies the other party's interests too.

8/

This is A Good Thing, because outcomes that aren't seen as fair and equitable tend not to last

9/

The difficulty for HMG remains that the White Paper isn't clearly grounded in interests, but instead in positions: it's a domestic haggle

10/

Thus while it may be correct that WP can't go any further on its compromises, that's not helpful because it implies it's the only path to explore

11/

Moreover, by framing this as concessions, HMG risks setting up disapproval for domestic audiences when further change occurs (as it likely must)

12/

By having clear interests, space could have been given to allow for movement, which could be then sold as a means to better secure those interests, because EU buys into them too

13/

So, don't fall into the presentational trap. It's not about how much you win by, but whether your interests are secured

/end