Negotiating Tactics

Maltastar   
 

 

The boring procession of EU personalities coming over to tell us to how greener the grass is on the other side of the fence is a real life case study of elementary negotiating tactics.

Any management studies student would have no problem in identifying these missions for what they really are – a high level heavy handed sales pitch enforced on an increasingly doubtful buyer.

Negotiations carry certain quite standard rules:

Rule 1

Tell the party negotiating the deal from the other side of the table how impressed you are with his knowledge and negotiating abilities and while conceding nothing or little of what he really wants, make him believe that his abilities have impressed you and that through his abilities he is really carving for himself a very good deal - even if reality is just the opposite.

Rule 2

Impress on the opposing negotiating party that he really has no choice other than closing a deal with you and that the alternative would be much worse than the tough terms you are seeking to impose. If the opposing party points to specific alternatives just categorically deny that they are or could be available.

Rule 3

Press the opposing party to close the deal as quickly as possible because the generous terms you are offering would only be available for a very limited time and that you could very well deny even further negotiations if the deal is not closed on the terms indicated within a very short time. It is very much like an unsolicited call from an aggressive door to door salesperson. He makes many ‘generous’ side offers to a very expensive central deal. He makes you believe that unless you take the deal before he walks out of the door the side offers will be removed and you will be left with the expensive central deal you just cannot do without.

 

“In so doing Lamy was just insulting our intelligence“

 Is this not what the precession of personalities, especially those from the Commission and the European Parliament, have been dishing out at us during their increasingly frequent visits.

Take last week’s visit by Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy.

The basic message was that Labour’s partnership policy does not exist and that we really have no alternative to membership and that inside the EU we will have influence over decisions which would affect us.

In so doing Lamy was just insulting our intelligence. He must really think that we are isolated islanders, detached from the world, waiting for the EU to bring us into the 20th century to keep us within a 100 years distance from the big EU countries who are courageously affronting the 21st century.

Just 2 weeks before, the Commission of which Lamy is one element out of twenty, sent their recommendations to the European Convention seeking to re-invent the EU to make it fit for an organisation just about to double its membership from 15 to nearly 30. In its proposal the Commission was emphatic that strict qualified majority must apply to all decisions in the Council of Ministers and all veto systems must be abolished including on matters related to taxation, social policy and common foreign policy.

Can Commissioner Lamy please explain to us what influence Malta could have in the Council of Ministers if decisions start being taken the way he and his Commission wish to design the EU?

And as to other alternatives how can Lamy deny the existence of such alternatives when his Commission proposed as follows to the Convention:

 

“These considerations make a compelling case for a critical reappraisal of these derogations. The Convention should confirm that an a’ la carte Europe is not the right option for the development of the Union. When the time comes to prepare a constitutional treaty, political attention should focus on the implications of joining the Union, by comparison with other formulas, such as those used within the European Economic Area (EEA)”

“But the EEA is the least alternative solution which is still more favourable than full membership.”

At the very least Malta has the option of joining Norway and Iceland in the European Economic Area arrangement. The argument that this would force us to take the commitments of the single market without being able to influence decisions from the inside is pure rhetoric. With total qualified majority voting we will not be able to influence anything from the inside.

At least through the EEA we would preserve our agricultural and fishing sectors, we would keep the funds from the common external tariff, keep autonomy in monetary and fiscal matters and avoid being engulfed in the unstoppable process of political centralisation leading to common foreign and defence policies.

But the EEA is the least alternative solution which is still more favourable than full membership. Bilateral negotiations to work out something as specific as the Swiss have managed to put in place is possible no matter how much Lamy and his likes try to impress otherwise. The Swiss bilateral agreements have just come into force and if the Swiss can do it we can do it too.

The Swiss had their strategic location in the heart of Europe essential to facilitate EU’s road transport to leverage their position in the negotiations. We have our strategic position too. Much to Lamy et al’s displeasure Malta is in the 21st century too and we need no false well-wishers to tell us what’s best for us. This decision belongs to us and us alone.