Thread by @Usherwood

Let's think a bit about Frost's speech today and the use of threats in negotiation

1/

To be clear, this is negotiation, given that there is a live process of interaction between EU and UK, both on the narrow issue of making the Protocol work and more generally on the overall relationship

2/

Threats in negotiation are simply the mirror of promises: things that might be in the future, depending on whether the other side do or don't do the thing you want

3/

Three simple tests for a threat/promise to stick, broadly speaking:
- it is credible?
- it is proportionate?
- will you actually do it?

4/

Obviously a bit of overlap, but each criterion speaks to a different aspect

5/

Credibility is a function of how much the threat/promise matches the problem to be solved, and how much it improve that problem for the threatener

6/

Proportionality is about whether the threat/promise matches the size of the problem: underkill produces a shrug; overkill increases chances of counteraction

7/

And finally, are you realistically going to do what you say you threaten/promise? The emptier your words, the less credible it is

8/

On Art.16, Frost isn't in the clear on any of the three dimensions

It doesn't solve the problems he sees; it's not a proportionate step; and if it's clear it can be used, why hasn't UK used it?

https://twitter.com/Usherwood/status/1441292264265826311?s=20

9/

tl;dr bad negotiating, even if it might make some sense for domestic political consumption

/end