Thread by @Usherwood

Let's consider a perceptual problem with Brexit, namely the notion that it's a zero-sum game:

1/

For lots of people, this is exactly how they see it: my loss must be your gain

2/

That makes instinctive sense: why would anyone conclude an agreement that doesn't produce 'winners'?

3/

It partly explains the backstop issue. Because it is seen as bad for the UK, it must therefore be good for the EU/Ireland

4/

This is why a lot of the comment from Brussels/EU27 that it's not a preferred outcome falls on deaf ears: " they're just saying that, but really it's what they want" comes the reply

5/

Chuck in a bunch of mutual distrust and it's not hard to see why some see the backstop as a trap

6/

But all this is to miss the bigger reality that Brexit isn't zero-sum, but negative-sum: it will have an outcome with losses on all sides

7/

Those losses might be economic, political or reputational, but they are unavailable for all involved.

Seen in this light, the question isn't "how can I win?" but "how can I manage my losses?"

8/

The backstop doesn't serve the UK well (globally speaking) in the long-run, but also doesn't serve the EU well either

9/

It covers a gap between the end of transition and the start of new UK-EU relationship in a way that avoids re-imposing border controls @BorderIrish , but in a way that requires more lasting arrangements to be found

10/

At best, it's a way to kick the can further down the road, but it's most definitely not an end-point.

Only as the process moves towards that new UK-EU relationship will there be any scope for gaining wins

/end