The Failure of Negotiations - Part 2

“Yet to anyone following the process from outside the caldron of British politics, the question is whether there ever was a formula that the British could have agreed on. From the outset, Brexit was based on an illusion —”

 (The New York Times, 2019 )

The Brexit withdrawal deal by Theresa May is possibly one of the most significant fiascos of international policy brokering. The Prime Minister had two months to leave from the European Union who immediately prepared for a hard Brexit while Theresa May entered talks without any real strategy on how to implement the exit or the resources to cope with an eventuality that would allow her to walk away from the negotiations with no repercussions. While May’s ineffective leadership, unsound hindsight, a series of miscalculated moves or absence of authority were all stimulants to the chaos that ensued, it was the lack of a clear contingency plan that deemed it a no-win game right from the start with her eventual resignation.

Nobody likes to lose and if you are wheeling and dealing, you are likely setting yourself up for failure. Compromises, as stated earlier only add detours to your roadmap to success. Similarly, negotiations also need to be considered with the same pinch of salt. This simply means that if you do not have a worst-case scenario that you can work with or a walk-away position, you are most likely getting the raw end of the deal.

While collaborative action and joint ventures can help elevate your goals, relying on negotiations as the only resort to achieve your goal is the set-up for a failed premise. Negotiations by default have an inherent tension to them on account of both parties assuming that either side benefits more from the result and the lack of complete transparency. 

To effectively negotiate you are required to lay all your cards on the table with regard to your interests and preferences which more often than not work in your disadvantage. Very rarely, can you fully gauge the underlying motives of the other involved parties and therefore complete openness is only paving exposure to your vulnerabilities or increased costs. For instance, lawyers who deal with civil litigation cases spend exorbitant amounts for pre-trial discoveries. This is done in an attempt to force the hand of the opposing counsel into a favourable settlement that ends in an outcome where both parties have incurred sizeable monetary costs at the end.

In short, the key factor in every dispute resolution process is to be aware of the consequences and have alternative solutions. Yes, the ball may be in your park and the odds may seem to be stacked in your favour but the very situation that has you sitting in Conference Room 12 debating back and forth points to a potential result at a definitive price. The question is are you willing to pay this price and if not are you at a position of power to abandon the process completely.