Thread by @Usherwood

Right - this was part of much larger discussion, but it's worth unpacking this point for you all

1/

https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1034913791560110080

In essence there are two main flavours of 'craziness' that people often lump together (esp in Brexit), so it's important to separate them out, as they're very different

2/

First sort is proper 'madman' theory, as practised by Nixon in Vietnam and successive North Korean leaders

3/

The aim here is to communicate to opponents (and it's very adversarial) that you or your leader is unhinged enough to do something very foolish and painful

4/

This in turn requires a number of elements to work.

1) a credible narrative of hingedness
2) a credible action they can take

5/

As you'll have worked out from the examples, that threat usually involves the use of nukes, but it can be anything that would give genuine pause for thought on the other side's part

6/

The narrative bit is more complex. Either you're very publicly unhinged (Nixon), or you hide enough of what you do to generate profound uncertainty (N.Korea)

But you certainty have to signal your erratic behaviour over a sustained period

7/

If we pull this back to Brexit, then we might have a narrative, but I'm not sure we have a threat, given the unbalanced nature of the costs of no-deal against the UK

8/

Thus the UK looks less madman, more Violet Elizabeth Bott

9/

And that's before we even get to the checks and balances in the UK system that limit what a PM can do on this front.

10/

However, this does bring to the second version of unhingeness, which I think is more applicable here:

'the tying of hands'

11/

In any negotiation, you can try and make particular outcomes look more or less attractive to interlocutors.

But you can claim some outcomes are either inevitable or impossible

12/

In international negotiations, this is is easier, because you're in a two-level game

That means you can claim you'd like to do X, but someone else is preventing you

13/

Classic example is COM using French objections about agri tariffs to secure a big concession from US in the Blair House talks on Uruguay Round of GATT in early 90s.

COM said it cld only move w unanimous approval of EU states, so literally no option (it said)

14/

Again, in generic terms, you have to be able to demonstrate credible narratives and threats

15/

The difference here is that it's possible to make it look like you're both on the same side: "I really want a deal with you, but my people are stopping me: can you help?"

16/

In Brexit context, we certainty have some hand-tiers (in CON and Parliament) and a credible threat to block (which HMG has said it really doesn't want)

17/

But there are still issues

18/

Firstly, others' model of Westminister might make them feel that No.10 can override most opposition if it really wants to, given its generic powers

19/

Secondly, EU might feel No.10 might be more ambivalent about a deal than it claims, so this might just be a ruse

20/

Thirdly, and linked, those threats to crash the bus from hard Brexit types haven't come to anything yet, so maybe they won't ever pull the trigger

21/

And even if they did, Parliament in the round looks like it's on the softer side of things, so it might step in to override or reverse the trigger-pulling

22/

Overall, I can see how an unhinged strategy might work here, but it's the fundamental absence of credible threat that fatally weakens it

23/

Of course, this opens up a final thought: what if the UK is just too stupid to understand its situation, and so do something foolish?

24/

Main response to this is that countries aren't stupid: individuals are.

HMG has demonstrated more than enough awareness of its situation to call this one out

25/

However, knowing what's what and being able to do something about it are 2 different things.

To return to a perennial theme: Brexit's really complex and can produce gridlocking problems

26/

Ironically, in this situation, there's much more incentive on part of EU to help UK out.

If internal processes are stuck, then maybe a kick from outside might help

27/

that's not an unhinged strategy, but a helpless one and it's also risky (reflect on the general feeling about foreigners helping us out, or even offering well-intentioned advice)

28/

tl;dr none of these are safe, reliable ways to negotiate, so much better to avoid them

/end

(if you want an more viable madman gambit, try this: bbc.co.uk/news/world-asi…)