Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
You’re out on a limb there. You’ve ignored my point that we should have gone in hard.nnMay is an appeaser and leaving on WTO terms will be presented as a cliff edge failure rather than something we had planned for at the start.
You’ve also ignored my assertion that May has treated the negotiations as a 4% matter rather than a democratic mandate to leave the EU institutions.
I’m surprised by your stance here.
|
I have not ignored your points at all. I simply don't agree that we should have 'gone in hard' with the EU, because it would have been counter-productive.
We are asking the EU for a trade deal, which would be in our mutual interests. There is no point in getting their backs up, they are difficult enough at the best of times.
There are different ways you can handle a negotiation. A pretty good way I have found is to go for more than I want, stay reasonable and give a few early concessions, and maybe offer up one or two things that you have come up with the other side haven't thought about. At the same time, flag up a worst case scenario if a deal cannot be reached.
But every negotiator has a different way of doing things. But if you go in hard, don't expect any favours from the other side. They will hate you!
You can say what you like about Theresa May's tactics and the deal she has proposed, but if she comes up with a proposal that satisfies the essential red lines and allows us to trade effectively with other countries, what is there to criticise? It's the end result that she should be judged on.