Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
It really sounds like you’ve cut and pasted that from somewhere else 
First: is HMG negotiating from a position of weakness? Please quantify. I’ve already outlined where I believe they see the strength of their position: that it’s a matter of territorial integrity that absolves them from accusations of dishonesty and risks to future potential trade deals around the world.
Second: the admission of “specific and limited” violation of international treaties was crafted to enrage remainers, in order to use that rage to convince the EU negotiators that the UK was willing to play hardball. Insiders have described it as “the berserker strategy”. It worked magnificently - Barnier was effectively sidelined from that point onwards because the EU side realised two things, namely that they were going to have to compromise, and that Barnier was too much of a zealot to do it. It’s slightly amusing that you’re still triggered by that line though, so long afterwards. |
It's a position of weakness as the UK cannot offer the EU anything in return. No EU negotiator is going to sell this to the member states who would need to vote on it. This seems largely intended for internal consumption.
Some have said it's from the Putin play book. When things aren't going well domestucallt, pick a fight overseas. I don't think that's the case here but I'm sure it will give the leader writers of the Express and Sun plenty of column inches.