When’s a negotiation not one? When @MichelBarnier has to allow a UK free ride. He won’t. The UK must accept reality or hit a wall. Lesser issues still decide if the crash is merely awful, or disastrous. For @BorisJohnson it’s his survival v. UK interest. Statesmanship, anyone?/1.

[Long thread. Big subject. Bear with me!] @DavidGHFrost’s UK team has four vital interests. Not “laws, borders, money & economy” (the last is true). Campaigning rhetoric mustn’t warp our thinking. Really, they’re obsessed with (but not always delivering on) the following: .../2.

... (i) UK economy: it has to prosper. Nobody enjoyed the Blitz, even if the spirit was great; (ii) territorial integrity, aka survival of the UK; (iii) emotional connection to voters: for a future majority; (iv) immediate political survival: to fight on in Party & Parliament./3.

The EU team has related interests. Due to stark asymmetry between the UK & EU situations, the EU can easily deal with each (provided some skill & EU solidarity). The UK’s trapped. The crash can be more or less rapid, more or less severe. But the brick wall fills the horizon./4.

At first glance, UK & EU seem to be in a multidimensional negotiation. To see what it really is & where it’s headed, let’s analyse it as a classic negotiation on each of the key dimensions listed. I’ll use a bit of negotiation jargon. For good reason. Please be kind!/5.

For UK & EU, on each dimension, what’s the: (a) (highly) desirable outcome (DO); (b) best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA): “walk away” point; (c) & worst (WATNA): avoid! (d) zone of overlap of their DO to BATNA ranges: the zone of possible agreements (ZOPA)?/6.

Economy. Looking purely at economic benefit (we come to other factors when looking at the other dimensions) the UK & EU have the same DO: continued UK membership of the EU. Given the UK has left, the DO is a CU+SM deal: this requires minimal negotiation - for this analysis .../7.

... effectively zero: a roll over of existing arrangements. So it’s also both sides’ BATNA. Each side’s DO & BATNA is the same as the other’s. The distance between DO & BATNA is zero. So the ZOPA has zero size. It’s a single point, representing one outcome: CU+SM./8.

The UK’s WATNA is “no deal”: no negotiator advancing UK economic interests can go near it. The EU’s far larger economy & much smaller (proportionate) impact of “no deal” mean it’s a lot less acute an issue for them. Giving the UK a free ride, on something important, is worse./9.

Note: FTA or “thin deal” aren’t UK BATNAs (or DOs). They’re v bad: far worse than CU+SM, but better than “no deal”. They fail the basic BATNA test, needing complex negotiation with the EU. “No deal” is atrocious for the UK: WATNA on steroids. Claims it isn’t are pure fantasy./10.

Territorial & market integrity. It’s fundamental to the EU’s position that no free ride will be given to the UK. Greater ease of access to the EU market means greater adherence to EU rules. So, provided the EU sticks strictly to this position on all significant issues .../11.

... EU integrity is assured in any outcome, from CU+SM to FTA, “thin deal” & “no deal”. On this dimension the EU has no DO, BATNA or WATNA. All outcomes are roughly equally manageable. The same is emphatically not true for the UK./12.

Due to the political, ethical & legal need to respect the law, notably the Good Friday Agreement, any outcome other than CU+SM automatically splinters the country, ejecting Northern Ireland from its previous status in the UK. It likely shatters it by propelling Scotland .../13.

... toward the UK exit. Negotiating analysis of this dimension shows a single point for the UK’s DO & BATNA, & its ZOPA with the EU: CU+SM. That the UK has deviated from this is quite stunning: a powerful indication that something else - not “negotiation” - is underway. What?/14.

Emotion. The facts about the impact of Brexit/UK-EU “deals” - not least on the economy, & the very survival of the UK - play next to no role in the voter motivations which the government/Conservative Party are targeting. Emotional connection, always important in politics, .../15.

... is now all. Still, voters don’t want to be left behind economically. And most prefer the country not to be damaged or dismantled. The facts don’t fit (unless, against all expectation, the EU fundamentally changes it’s approach & agrees to give the UK .../16.

... an enormous free ride, rendering other outcomes as beneficial as, or more than, CU+SM). So the emotional pitch requires a series of ever more fantastical propositions. Examples: FTA, “thin deal” or “no deal” better than CU+SM economically! On sovereignty: .../17.

... UK better able to achieve prosperity & security for its people by using sovereign decision making outside EU arrangements rather than within them! Border down Irish Sea doesn’t mean UK territory’s being dismantled (“UK left whole & entire”)!/18.

It’s only in this world of mythical economic & national security beasts that, in negotiating terms, an FTA can become the UK’s DO, “no deal” the BATNA, & CU+SM the WATNA. For the EU, all outcomes from CU+SM to FTA & “no deal” are about equal on this, emotional, dimension./19.

Bringing the UK government’s emotional cake-and-eat-it-land together with weary EU realism, a magical, maybe quantum-mechanical, unstable ZOPA can be discerned: the highly constrained spectrum from FTA to “no deal” (or just short of it, as technically it isn’t an agreement)./20.

A Schrödinger’s ZOPA. Alive, when the real consequences of its outcomes are being ignored. Dead, once the pain of its impacts is registered, piercing the emotional cocoon in which many voters have wrapped themselves. (“No deal” is worst; FTA & “thin deal” are also terrible)./21.

Immediate political survival. For EU it’s simple: don’t give the UK a free ride on anything significant; remain engaged, polite & reasonable enough not to be blamed (credibly) for UK rejection of CU+SM & the inevitable consequences which follow, especially in a “no deal”./22.

For the UK government it’s anything but simple. Going for a deal in “Schrödinger’s ZOPA” allows for immediate political survival (in Party, Parliament & country). But the UK’s hammered & dismantled, with political defenestration of the current leadership a likely consequence./23.

Going for the real ZOPA (CU+SM), the one that represents the world we inhabit, of economies & national security interests, leads to rapid political ejection for David F & the PM, perhaps before the deal can be ratified in Parliament./24.

So, the discussions with Michel B & the EU team are not negotiations in any normal sense. Not even the wrangling over the details (important though they are) of where we might end up in the hellish space between FTA & “no deal”./25.

The real negotiations - unrecognisable as such in their chaos & lack of rigour - are between factions in government, & between the government & various Conservative Party groupings & individuals. Some say Party donors wanting to profit from “no deal” are in play. I doubt it./26.

Such theories, justified or not, aren’t essential to an understanding of what’s happening. Emotion trumps contrary facts in capturing the votes required for a Conservative majority in Brexit Britain. The facts about the UK’s economic well-being & national security point .../27.

... in the opposite direction to the emotions of those voters, MPs & Party members, needed for the PM’s & government’s survival. Satisfying emotional needs may provide immediate political relief. But that’s unlikely to survive the UK’s impact with the wall of reality./28.

Even if it does, the stain of being responsible for terrible, avoidable damage to the UK & its people, will never leave the PM or those who work with him. They all know & feel it. There’s a way out. But it requires statesmanship on the scale of Churchill’s .../29.

... greatest political achievements. It needs the cooperation of all, across all parties, who represent the majority view in the country: that Brexit’s an error. To deliver CU+SM before the car crash happens./30.

Michel B’s real mandate is to lead a diplomatic mission helping keep 400+ m EU residents safe & prosperous, & trying to avoid serious injury to 60+ m neighbours. David F is tasked to save the PM. UK political leaders’ job is to rise above dysfunction & rescue the country./31. End