Does Cameron understand "negotiation"?

BobQ

This is how Cameron explains his position on EU Reform

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32575123

Does he really understand what negotiation is all about. Most people understand negotiation to be parties discussing a problem and trying to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

"Well, I've demonstrated. People said you'll never cut the EU budget, I cut it. People said you'll never veto a treaty, I vetoed a treaty. So people know with me, I have a strong record of negotiating in Europe."

Exercising a veto is not negotiating with anyone. Making unilateral statements of what you plan is not negotiation.

I actually support the idea of negotiating with the other EU nations over our concerns on immigration and benefit entitlement but we should be doing this constructively from within, not standing on one side and shouting we want this or that or we will leave. That is not negotiation.

So does Cameron understand what negotiations are about?

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Does he really understand what negotiation is all about. Most people understand negotiation to be parties discussing a problem and trying to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

So does Cameron understand what negotiations are about?

No different to the Greeks. What gets said in public and private is totally different.

Generali

Of course exercising a veto can be a part of negotiations. It's just like me telling a supplier that if they don't give me a price I like I'll go elsewhere.

When negotiating you use the tools you have.

Anyway, as Thrugs says, what gets said outside the negotiating room and inside are very different things.

globalds

you have to be pushed in a corner before you really get to the nitty griitty


All this stuff comes out after the next general election.

The one we are doing now is a warm up

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Of course exercising a veto can be a part of negotiations. It's just like me telling a supplier that if they don't give me a price I like I'll go elsewhere.

When negotiating you use the tools you have.

Anyway, as Thrugs says, what gets said outside the negotiating room and inside are very different things.

And given the upset that leaving the EU would cause, which alternative is he threatening them with?

If his policy is to arrogantly lay the law down and say agree or I am off, fair enough it is an engagement strategy. But is it negotiation?

If your supplier says his price is X and you say I will give you 90% of X you can start a negotiation. If you just walk away you are not negotiating.

CLAPTON

the EU has many times said there is no compromise possible : rules are rules
is that the right was to negotiate?

anyway it's irrelevant : the EU know what our position is and we know theirs
what will matter is events.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

And given the upset that leaving the EU would cause, which alternative is he threatening them with?

Who said the the UK is leaving the EU. Anyway much could happen before any referendum.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

And given the upset that leaving the EU would cause, which alternative is he threatening them with?

If his policy is to arrogantly lay the law down and say agree or I am off, fair enough it is an engagement strategy. But is it negotiation?

If your supplier says his price is X and you say I will give you 90% of X you can start a negotiation. If you just walk away you are not negotiating.

In my prior (recent) role I was regularly involved in negotiations. My team would negotiate a deal and then another group would do the legals.

A standard preferred negotiating ploy would be to examine alternative suppliers in the lead up to negotiations. For example we looked at a research provider we use for something called ESG. We had 2 providers, one for Australia and one for the rest of the world.

Now the Aussie one is better and cheaper than the world one but we still threatened the Aussie one we would consolidate into a single supplier if they didn't cut prices. They did, from memory we saved c5-10% off the bill. People rarely give you a discount just for saying, 'please'. Not in business and I suspect not in politics either.

michaels

The reason eu leaders have ignored dc to date is because they have been planning on dealing with em after the uk election - possibly to the extent of encouraging farage and ukip in order to split the pro referendum vote. Their style would be very different were the polls to be wrong and the tories got re-elected.

princeofpounds

Some of you seem to be debating on outdated information.

Juncker has said the comments about not negotiating were mid-reported, and the EU may be open to discussing 'minor' changes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32495060

Moby

The problem is minor changes are not going to be enough to appease the tory right and UKIP. The other European leaders don't like Cameron much. Merkel and Holland are calling the shots. An election result with Cameron still PM but with less seats than 2010 is hardly going to help his negotiating position re. negotiating opt outs for a referendum. How can it? He won't even be able to ensure that it gets through the HoC looking at the current projections of seats. In any event Farage will ensure the public are informed that the opt outs are phyrric victories. Do people seriously believe that UKIP and the tory right will ever be satisfied with whatever Cameron says he has got as concessions?