Finklestein Hoists the White Flag

Daniel Finklestein writing in the Times today joins the ranks of those negotiating amongst ourselves and forecasts that our prospects of negotiating a satisfactory exit from the EU are hopeless.  The best thing we can do, he concludes, is to try to string out the process for as long as possible in the Micawber-like hope that something will turn up.

Finklestein does “his country” no service by using his position as a usually respected commentator and Conservative to undermine the British cause in Brussels.  But apart from his loyalty, he is fundamentally wrong, both in his analysis and proposed remedy.

Finklestein bases his argument on the premise that the British negotiating position is hopelessly weak.  He is wrong.  It is not the negotiating position that is weak it is just that, apparently, our negotiators have not yet played our best cards.  So keen are we to be nice to our EU partners, that we have side-lined our contribution to defence and security, failed to point out that in any WTO tit-for-tat it would be those that sell to us that would come off worst, nor reminded those countries with nation-crippling youth unemployment that their young people may find it tougher to come here in the future. 

 

Since it takes two to tango, what about the other side, or the enemy as Hammond calls them?  Does anyone who doesn’t believe in fairies honestly think that the awful quartet of Juncker, Selmayr, Barnier and Verhofstadt mean us no harm?  Even Michael O’Leary, defender of the European regulatory faith, has stated that this unelected bunch of eurosheisters are out to get us!  However, so far, it has not been the EU Nations who have been negotiating, just the EU on their behalf so let us wait and see what agricultural and car workers across the continent think in due course.  Finklestein says that the lack of concrete progress in negotiation is because of the weakness in the British bargaining position.   Again, he is wrong – it is the EU side who are weak, simply stalling for more money because they have no answers, in their narrow and unimaginative brief, to our perfectly sensible proposals.

When you enter any negotiation, it is important to have identified, in advance, your bottom line and the point at which you will walk away. If you cannot identify the point at which you walk away then don’t enter the negotiation in the first place! Nobody, surely, is advocating that we continue to make concessions until we eventually reach an agreement?  Equally, nobody, surely, believes that we should get everything we ask for?  The great Bridge Master, SJ Simon identified the secret of not losing at Bridge as finding the best contract possible rather than the best possible contract – the half-loaf theory.  Once both sides accept this logic then amicable divorce terms will surely follow.

So, no Daniel Finklestein, playing for time is the last thing we should be doing.  Neither should we be prepared to continue offering endless compromises whilst the EU say nothing in reply apart from demanding more money. Instead, we should be playing hard-ball and leaving the EU team in no doubt that we will walk away (not from our European commitments and best interests, of course, just the pretence of a trade "deal") if necessary.   Meantime, perhaps Finklestein, Rudd, Soubry, Hammond, not to mention Clegg, and their fellow travellers could just keep their mouths shut for a while, wait and see what is presented to Parliament in due course, and vote accordingly.