A couple of thoughts on holding your interlocutors close (inspired by a quick cuppa with @anandMenon1)
1/
1/
Right now, the Brexit process looks rather choppy, with low trust, high uncertainty and an exciting array of poor outcomes
2/
2/
One path is to push all this away and to blame others for the problems
Another is to play super-nice
3/
Another is to play super-nice
3/
Both UK and EU have used elements of both paths, but the past 24 hours have been instructive in the value of super-nice-ness
4/
4/
The value of the approach is that by talking up common ground and the potential for finding agreement, you:
a) demonstrate your good faith in the process, should it go belly-up;
b) potentially create the conditions for an actual deal
5/
a) demonstrate your good faith in the process, should it go belly-up;
b) potentially create the conditions for an actual deal
5/
By contrast, brow-beating your opponent is much more dependent on the options available to each side: if they have poor alternatives, then you might be able to push them your way
6/
6/
The oddity here is that the EU appears to be in a structurally-stronger position, yet it is the more determinedly super-nice role, while the UK - with its exposure to v.big no-deal costs - is more comfortable with brow-beating
7/
7/
That said, yesterday suggests that No.10 sees the value of playing up progress at critical points. Worth noting this has happened at previous such occasions, which suggests a general disposition to trying to get a deal (over just getting out tout court)
8/
8/
The difficulty with super-nice-ness is, well, you've got to be super-nice.
Is this all going to stick in someone's craw at some point? And what then?
9/
Is this all going to stick in someone's craw at some point? And what then?
9/
tl;dr there's a reason IR scholars keep on going on about the Sun and the North Wind
/end
/end
