By David Bryan
Brexit is unchartered territory. There is no one group, individual, politician, technocrat, bureaucrat or political party any where in Europe who is the authority or has the expertise on the separation of a nation from the European Union.
For those critics, naysayers and town criers; there is no parallel or historical account to draw upon or from; Brexit for all intents and purposes has no equal.; it in itself is a political phenomenon.
It is understandable then, for there to be common place criticism on how the procedure ought to be played out; or the continuous solicited and unsolicited thoughts of constructive suggestion and dialogue on the path in which the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Mrs. Theresa May should take with the EU.The caveat , however is no one has all the answers; which has led to frustration, impatience and impertinence.
But, is this not the cherished workings of democracy in motion; were all views can be expressed; both positive or negative? All views, though, cannot be implemented, nor can the majority view of Brexit be disregarded.
The will of the people must be carved out by a “responsible government; were the idea that government should be strong-and therefore able when necessary take unpopular decisions- and accountable for its actions to the elected representatives of the people”.
The fact of the matter is, however, Prime Minister May is governing a minority coalition government with the DUP- which is a form of “representative government; of the Burkean view- in which the representative, whilst having the duty to consult and take into account constituents’ opinions, owes the primary duty to the national interest and to conscience.”
It is this consciousness of Ms. Arlene Foster of the DUP that brought the halt of proceedings in the talks with the EU earlier this week regarding the issue of Ireland. So, what is required, is: strong representative responsible government from the Tory and the DUP party in moving forward in the Brexit talks with the EU.
To go further, as noted that in ‘Contemporary British Politics‘; conservatism in its purest form is really “for the party to support government and to that end it must be united so that government is strong and stable; loyalty to party and perhaps especially to the party leader is a primary political virtue.”
“Conservatives must see the party as integrative rather than a divisive force in society.”
Brexit is about destination not on cabin and crew falling apart on expected choppy seas, before docking or members facilitating the conditions for a mutiny. The cruise is to ensure the passengers exit safely upon reaching the end of the journey.
BREXIT as a Partnership
In order for Brexit to progress to its logical conclusion; it cannot be viewed in terms of a ‘divorce’; but rather as a new relationship or partnership being forged between familiar single parties akin too two single parents united by one common interest; their offspring.
So even though the UK is removing itself from the EU, both parties have to view each other as ‘partners’ in a lasting friendship and “not as rivals. Both parties have to open up a long list of items that need to be explained and negotiated.”
For Brexit to continue on its trajectory, negotiation cannot be rigid but flexible so that “the parties need to negotiate the tricky issues that are unique to partnering” for example:-
- What are the acceptable labour, trade, profit, costs;
- What are the rights of the UK citizens, European citizens post Brexit;
- What are the acceptable limits to the customs,immigration and border issues;
A Win-Win Brexit-EU Partnership Strategy Mode of Negotiation
The negotiation between the EU and the UK must be seen in the right way “not as a contest or game in which the gains of one come only at the expense of the other”. Dr. Chester L Karrass suggest that parties who are negotiating must adopt a “win-win mode of negotiation.”
Karrass state “win-win is not equal sharing”; win-win is concerned with “creating value were none was recognized or searched for before”- on the other hand, he notes that “win-win doesn’t tell you how to share the winnings”.
Karass “sees two main benefits resulting from a win-win mode:
- it always allows both parties to find a better deal;
- it’s a good way to avoid or break deadlock”.
Karass compares the win-win to one in which” the two negotiating parties sit down to divide up ten marbles, and they end up creating three more. Together they have created more marbles to divide up, but that doesn’t mean both parties will share equally.”
“To understand win-win negotiation, imagine a 10 inch diameter pie cut into ten equal pieces. Two parties are negotiating how many ten pieces each will get. If one get six, the other get four. If one gets eight one gets two- this type of competitive negotiation is not win-win but a contest for shares of the pie.”
Here is the power and pizazz of negotiation; according to Karasss, is that it is far more than a contest. The negotiation has the potential to be a win -win process by which the parties work together to produce a 12 inch pie which is bigger and tastier than before.”
“The parties cut the larger pie into twelve pieces and share it more easily than than the original ten smaller less, tasty pies”. Wouldn’t it be easier to share twelve pieces of a bigger pie than ten pieces of a smaller pie that was not good”.
According to Karrass “the instinct should be searching for a “better deal for both parties-only after searching and finding the bigger and better deal for both do they worry about how to share it”.
“The basic principle of win-win negotiation is that there is always a bigger and better deal for both parties if they are willing to search for it. Bot parties increase their” share and “satisfactions without hurting each other”.
“The win-win principle also says that negotiating can always be made larger and better before sharing it with the opposing side.”
In Brexit; there is nothing wrong with serious honest dis-agreements over the answers. “There will always be issues on which the parties seriously disagree.” There will always be changes, benefits and contributions that involves unknown or uncertain sharing requirement.
“The right formula will always be unknown and uncertain. There will always be an imbalance of power between the two parties in the sharing of benefits and contributions”
In Brexit “there will be issues that will require very difficult negotiations. Partnering is not the end of negotiations, it’s the beginning.”
Finally, “action changes the balance of power. The strengths of fait accompli is the fact that once the deed is done or an action taken it is difficult to undo.” The Jesuit principle; “it is difficult to obtain forgiveness than permission” is base on the same concept.
For instance ” A man stops at a restaurant for a few drinks with fellow workers and comes home late. He should of phone his wife earlier to advise her he would be late. This might have led to an undesired negotiation at the wrong time. Instead he takes the action, comes home late, and negotiates forgiveness. The moral of the story-Brexit is not the place to negotiate forgiveness.