Is it better to hide your goals from the party with whom you are negotiating, or is it better to tell them exactly what it is that you want?  If the approach of the British government to Brexit is anything to go by, then the best approach is to either have no idea of what you want – or at the very least to not announce your ambitions to the other parties.

At the start of the 1980s the accepted approach to negotiating was to seek and hold a position of power over the other parties and to try to gain as much as possible to the benefit or your interests, whether to the detriment of the other parties or not.  The publishing of the book “Getting to Yes” in 1981 started a revolution in the thinking of negotiation techniques, and was authored by the two men who went on to develop what is often referred to today as the Harvard Win-Win approach or Principled Negotiation.

The (simplified) concept at its heart is quite basic, and revolves around the aim of establishing mutual gain, rather than trying to out-do the other parties.  The essence of establishing this mutual gain is through the concentration on the parties’ interests rather than negotiating positions, and through the use of commonly agreed (objective) criteria: something which is enhanced through open and honest communication.  The idea is not to obfuscate your desires but to outline them clearly so that together all parties can work to a solution which fits everyone as best as possible.  If in doubt, a good approach is to tell the other parties as much as possible – it is even possible that they have a better solution that the one which you were originally seeking.

Although the method itself is not without its critics, there is certainly a logic to the position that any party cannot hope to achieve a goal unless that goal is shared with the other parties.

Why then, after more than 30 years of practising this technique do we find the British government continuously peddling the myth that the only way for negotiations to be successful is for Brussels to have as little information as possible concerning the United Kingdom’s ultimate goal?  The UK government seems determined to obfuscate as much as possible its ambitions for Brexit – indeed, nearly a year on from the start of negotiations we find ministers openly criticising those who publicly declare their opinions:  the Health minister Jeremy Hunt stated that they should hold “…debates in private… because this is a negotiation”, adding that if the negotiators in the EU “…see divisions in the open, they will exploit that.”

How does the British government imagine that it can maintain a “deep and special partnership” with the EU when it accuses the EU of wanting to exploit its position?  Who would want to be helpful in negotiations to someone that publicly insulted them?  In any case, it is difficult to see why the EU would wish to impose restrictive conditions on the UK for trade, when any such conditions would ultimately harm and reduce the trade between the two bodies?

Of concern in this process is not only the childish and insulting approach to Brexit being taken by the government, but also the very real chance that any position being negotiated will to fail meet the expectations of the British public – of particular importance now that the parliament has voted to approve (or not) the final deal for Brexit.  The question posed in the referendum was: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”  A question which other than through interpretation, does not provide any clear guidance on the specifics of departure or indeed any future relationship that might be sought.  Does for example this mean that the UK would be considered part of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) or indeed the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA)?  Would the UK wish to remain part of the European Customs Union (EUCU) which would mean that customs levies need not be applied to goods in or out of Europe?

Given the fact that the ultimate deal will be subject to the approval of parliament, doesn’t it make sense to involve parliament in the debate?  How otherwise can the Member’s of Parliament effectively represent the people?  The combination of a lack of precision in the will of the people, the lack of further consultation and the total lack of open and honest debate in parliament does not seem conducive to the establishment of a solution which will appeal to all parties (most importantly the British public). In all likelihood, the result will not suit anyone and will therefore be rejected by parliament – thus representing a waste of two years of negotiation due to some idiotic idea that negotiations have to be kept secret.

Surely if the UK has any hope of establishing a Brexit which is acceptable to the EU and which meets the needs of the British public then it needs to engage in open debate; debate which is open to everyone, not least the EU!!

The EU is the stronger party in this process, it has all of the cards: it is the largest single economic area, it has pre-agreed trading agreements with the rest of the world, it has no internal customs tariffs and it has access to an immensely large population who are well educated and able to work.  It also has a stable judiciary, stable governments and a set of regulations – many of which were developed in partnership with UK interests in mind.  I am dumbfounded that anyone would think that there is anything to be gained by not pursuing an open and honest dialogue with the EU in order to seek the best possible solution – if only for the fact that it is probably a sound idea to start off any relationship on a foundation of friendship and honesty.