During the Brexit process, some leave supporting politicians compared the negotiations to a game of poker, often saying that the UK were effectively showing their hand and weakening their bargaining position. This terminology seems to have stuck with members of the public with some people claiming the debates and amends made in parliament were like playing poker and showing the opponent your hand. How correct is this analogy and is there any truth behind what I believe to be a misconception?
Asked
Active
Viewed 299 times
2 Answers
8
Canonical tweet on the subject
EU lays down a royal flush. UK looks at own cards: Mr Bun the Baker, Pikachu, a Shadowmage, a fireball spell, and the Fool
(To explain the joke, not only is the UK not holding the winning cards, it doesn't even have the right cards for the game, nor are they even coherent from the same game!)
To be more serious, the poker analogy relies on hidden information. Public policy making is not normally done with hidden information - usually the opposite. So we have freedom of information laws and consultation exercises in which all the options are presented, feedback is received, and the most satisfactory option is chosen. Brexit has been conducted in the opposite way.
The accusations of "showing your hand" were simply attempts to disguise the fact that the government had no plan for Brexit and no clear negotiation strategy. They were simply aimed as silencing domestic opposition in the short term.
(I would also submit that if your plan can be collapsed by a journalist asking "How is this going to work", it's not a good plan. Even if it existed in the first place.)
pjc50
- 22,106
- 3
- 52
- 85
6
Negotiation is a matter of perception.
Negotiation theory calls what you describe as Brinkmanship. It can be a viable strategy in an adversarial relationship, e.g. US vs. Soviet Union or US vs. DPRK. If one side believes that they are playing poker while the other side believes that they are playing chess, the outcome will be different from a negotiation where both sides play poker or both play chess.
The UK leadership concluded that major decisions in the EU always came down to an eleventh-hour compromise between heads of government. I believe that they were wrong in several particulars:
- The biggest threat by small, "recalcitrant" members is that they can prevent the required unanimity even in unrelated decisions. The UK no longer has this ability once they Brexit.
- Many of these late-night compromises happened when the principle of a decision were clear and "all" that remained was to put money into the blanks. "You fund my structural and cohesion funds and I agree to your fishing quota." The government leaders put the final touches on a document that was prepared by so-called Sherpas.
- In really big decisions like the Greek bailout, Greece got concessions on the sidelines but in the core issues the rest of the Eurozone stood firm. Yes, it came down to the eleventh hour. But the EU didn't blink, Greece did.
