Does Cameron understand "negotiation"?

Masomnia

It's one that politicians can't win on. You're either accused of throwing your toys out of the pram or rolling over and just accepting what Brussels tell you to do. Either way Cameron would be getting stick.

He's stuck up for Britain far better than the last lot; though he's no Maggie, of course.

antrobus

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. ...

Are 'most people' really that naive?

Didn't Mrs T stomp her foot and say "I want my money back". And she got it.

vivatifosi

I do wonder if a lot of Cameron's problems in Europe stem from his switching groups within the EU from the centre right. In doing so he has shrunk the size of his alliance substantially.

The group he formed is naturally anti Federalist and is I think now the fifth largest group in the EU, but has no membership from Italy, France or Spain and only minority membership from Germany. Could be seen as brave, or equally as folly. The status quo clearly does not approve though.

IronWolf

BobQ wrote: »

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.



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?

I get the impression you've not been involved in a high level negotiation. No one cares about a 'mutually acceptable' outcome, you go in to get the best possible outcome for yourself. If that means threatening to walk away, or using a veto then that's what you do.

ChiefGrasscutter

You wait until it gets closer and it looks like the UK might well vote to leave.
At that point the EU will suddenly have an attitude "re-adjustment".
Those things that were simply "impossible" without a treaty change will suddenly be done overnight.
The EU will be sheet-scared that they will loose the UK's contribution billions.
We will be showered with all sorts of ever more desperate incentives from the EU to get us to vote no.

BobQ

IronWolf wrote: »

I get the impression you've not been involved in a high level negotiation. No one cares about a 'mutually acceptable' outcome, you go in to get the best possible outcome for yourself. If that means threatening to walk away, or using a veto then that's what you do.

I realise this, but a lot depends on the relative strength of the parties involved and the extent to which they are prepared to dig their heals in or carry out any threats they make. In a position of strength you can take the view that you really do not want to compromise at all if you are prepared to walk away and that seems to be what those who speak fondly of Maggie's approach expect. But it is predicated on an assumption that the other parties will roll over and agree, which may not be the case.

I agree that a customer with lots of possible suppliers can take the position getting the best deal and not compromise at all. But what do you do if you only have one possible supplier?

Sure Cameron can say I want control of UK borders or I will recommend a no vote, and if he is willing to do that and carry it through whatever the impact on the UK economy, he can try this. But that is not "negotiation" a word he is fond using about the EU.





.