We're back into diminishing returns here: UK warnings about walking away become ever less credible with each time they are made and not followed through
Of course, also raises risk of it accidentally happening
Of course, also raises risk of it accidentally happening
Key point here is that if you are trying to change your practice (here, actually walking off when you say you will), then you have to make sure that the other party knows this is meant, otherwise they'll not respond to the signal (here, to move quickly to compromise)
Again, remember the point of threatening to walk away (and it's a poor practice, generally speaking) is to motivate the other party to move positions, so you get to a deal
If you'll failed to follow through before on such threats, then unsurprising if they don't believe you this time
So how to change their mind?
So how to change their mind?
Mainly by backing up words with actions:
- major ramp-up of contingency planning
- clear benchmarks of what constitutes 'progress'
Neither of these is happening BTW
- major ramp-up of contingency planning
- clear benchmarks of what constitutes 'progress'
Neither of these is happening BTW
Mordaunt got to 'hints' of contingency planning yesterday in Commons, which is meaningless, given how huge a task it is
theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
As an aside, there's lots of action that's needed for even the deal the UK wants, that isn't happening either, so further undermined image of sincerity in the negotiations
tl;dr talk is cheap, especially if not matched by your actions
(this also holds for other types of negotiations BTW)
