13th October 2021
Yesterday the Brexit minister David Frost gave a speech – and it is a speech that is worth considering carefully.
One reason to consider it carefully is that – unlike many ministerial speeches (and articles) that are produced by advisors and other functionaries – it is plain that this speech is the product of the minister’s mind.
As such, the speech has more historical and probative value that the usual erratic yet dry sequences of banalities, evasions and misdirections that constitute most ministerial communications.
We have an actual insight into one key minister is thinking (or not thinking) at this key moment, and this is rare, and we should appreciate it.
And as he is the minister who negotiated the two Brexit agreements – the withdrawal agreement and the trade and cooperation agreement – an insight into his thought (and lack of thought) is especially important at this time.
*
The explicit inspiration for the title of yesterday’s speech is a pamphlet by the eighteenth-century Whig writer and politician Edmund Burke.
And yesterday’s speech is, in turn, expressly a sequel to Frost’s Brexit speech in February 2020, which was also named after a publication by Burke.
In that February 2020 speech, English-born Frost described Burke as ‘one of my country’s great political philosophers’.
Burke was Irish.
And Burke died in 1797, before the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland.
This is just not a debating point: the slip is indicative of the shoddy combination of showiness and shallowness – about Ireland and other matters – in both of Frost’s speeches.
The Burke cited is the Burke of the quotation dictionaries, and of the beginnings and conclusions of C-grade A-level history essays, and not the Burke of history.
The Burke of history would probably have impeached this illiberal government in an instant.
*
The two Frost speeches, looked at together, reveal tensions.
For example, the February 2020 speech praised agreement negotiation at speed.
Referring to the then-prospective trade and cooperation agreement, 2020 Frost said:
‘…we can do this quickly. We are always told we don’t have enough time. But we should take inspiration, I think, from the original Treaty of Rome back in 1957. This was negotiated and signed in just under 9 months – surely we can do as well as that as well as our great predecessors, with all the advantages we have got now?’
But 2021 Frost does not like agreement negotiation at speed: the Northern Irish Protocol was ‘drawn up in extreme haste in a time of great uncertainty’.
The problem here is that there is no deeper thought beneath the phrases employed.
Frost has a fine phrase for negotiation at speed, and he has a fine phrase against negotiation in extreme haste.
But he does not realise nor care that the two phrases conflict: they are both simple expedients to get him through to his next paragraph.
This explains why during the Brexit negotiations Frost has been so constantly wrong-footed.
There is no substance, for all the paraded erudition.
The big negotiation taking place here is not between the United Kingdom and the European Union, but between the David Frost of 2020 and the David Frost of 2021.
And, somehow, both are losing.
*
Looking more closely at yesterday’s speech, you will see that it is structured (superficially) as a sequence of five ‘points’:
‘First to say that Brexit has changed our international interests and hence will change our patterns of European relationships – not necessarily fundamentally, but significantly. Second, that Brexit means competition – we will be setting a different path on economic policy. Third, that Brexit was about democracy – it is a democratic project that is bringing politics back home. Fourth, that the EU and we have got into a low-equilibrium somewhat fractious relationship, but that it need not always be like that – but also that it takes two to fix it. And fifth and finally, that fixing the very serious problem we have in the Northern Ireland Protocol is a pre-requisite for getting to a better place.’
Each of these points, however, turn out to be exercises in characterisation.
The United Kingdom position is characterised, and the European Union position is characterised.
Each characterisation is loaded and self-serving: the United Kingdom is portrayed as blameless and misunderstood, and the European Union is depicted as ignorant and even spiteful.
These characterisations are so extreme that both are better described as mischaracterisations.
And so the characterisations dissolve on closer examination as nothing more than excuses and accusations.
For example, take the issue of policy.
At one point Frost says that the United Kingdom will develop more substantial policy relationships with some European Union countries and not others, rather than the European Union as a whole.
But then he complains that the European Union is too rigid in binding the member states together in matters of policy:
‘In most EU member states many important things can’t be changed through elections – trade policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, important elements of immigration policy, indeed some important aspects of industrial policy.’
Frost does not seem to realise that the United Kingdom is – and will be treated as – a ‘third country’.
The tactic of trying to circumvent the European Union and with engaging member states directly did not work during the Brexit negotiations, and there is no reason to believe it would work now.
*
But the most important part of this speech is about Northern Ireland.
Here he makes some general contentions about sovereignty and the role of the European Court of Justice.
He then insists that the import of these contentions is that the Northern Irish protocol needs to be replaced.
In a way this is a reversal of the usual caricature of continentals being obsessed with airy abstractions, in contrast to our robust Anglo-Saxon empiricism.
For the complaint as articulated by Frost does not amount to much more than a general objection to the European Court of Justice on conceptual grounds.
And, in the meantime, the European Union is proposing a range of practical measures to give efficacy to the Protocol but without removing the minor and residual role of the European Court of Justice.
And so he is wrong-footed again.
*
The one thing in common between the two speeches is that Frost is brashly defiant in his support for Brexit.
He is certain that it was a historical necessity that the United Kingdom had to break free.
This, in turn, means he sneers at the European Union for not understanding the true nature of Brexit and its implications.
But both the 2020 and 2021 speeches reveal that the real failure to understand the implications of Brexit are with Frost and other United Kingdom ministers.
The European Union, on the other hand, seem to understand the (current) United Kingdom government all too well.
Frost complains about lack of trust: ‘we are constantly faced with generalised accusations that can’t be trusted and are not a reasonable international actor’.
But these accusations are not ‘generalised’ – instead they are, to use a phrase, ‘very specific and limited’.
And, according to statements today from a former Brexit adviser, the accusation of bad faith is well grounded.
good faith blah. listen to babble of student politics from sw1 insiders infantilised by EU membership. it was international diplomacy vs *people trying to cut our balls off*. of course there wasn't 'good faith' you 🤡. NEWSFLASH: cheating foreigners is a core part of the job
— Dominic Cummings (@Dominic2306) October 13, 2021
*
So, yes.
Frost’s speech has historical and probative value.
But it is not an impressive piece of work.
Characterisations (and mischaracterisations) do the work of propositions; accusations pile upon excuses; assertions are implicitly undermined by other assertions; and (ahem) very specific and limited concerns are dismissed as too general to matter.
And so the true historical and probative value of the speech is not as an insight into the thinking of the government at this stage of Brexit, but to its lack of thought.
Here it should be noted that Frost relies on the (supposed) popularity of Brexit as its ultimate justification:
‘That’s why I don’t see anything wrong with Brexit being described as a populist policy. If populism means doing what people want – challenging a technocratic consensus – then I am all for it.’
The wise counterpoint to this populism, of course, was once put as follows: that our ministers and representatives owe us their judgement – and that they betray us instead of serve us if they sacrifice their judgement to public opinion.
And who made this compelling counterpoint so eloquently?
Edmund Burke.
*****
Please help this daily law and policy blog continue.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.
Suggested donation of £1 upwards for each useful post, or of £5 upwards on a monthly profile.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
Thank you. One of your best, on one of our worst. It’s prompted me to subscribe on Patreon too.
One might say they’ve improved upon the adage “if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts” to changing the facts and the theory.
Without wishing to sound like a fanboy (often I’m not) this is a masterful bit of observation & writing, especially the description of Frost’s self-referential way of navigating from one paragraph to the next. And that final flourish had me doing an imagined air punch.
But, what saddens me about this situation is that Brexit fans like Frost or many of those who voted to get it ‘done’ are revelling in a romantic ideal. A story of little substance beneath the veneer of swashbuckling freedom. And those who see this have no compelling story of their own, because it was already told in 1975. I believe that this is an insurmountable problem.
Superb. Grounded, erudite, and inciteful. Burke shunned ‘populism’.
This characterisation of Frost’s speech is tendentious, to put it mildly. Let’s consider a few points:
1. Frost refers to Burke as “Irish-British”, which seems a fair description of someone who spent all his adult life in England, and 28 years in the House of Commons.
2. Yes, the UK is now a “third country”, but that doesn’t stop it having bilateral relations with EU member states (Ireland is a good example), such as France, with which there is likely to be a continuing defence and foreign policy dialogue, similar to France’s with the US, another third country.
3. The EU isn’t portrayed as “ignorant and spiteful”. Frost does list some specific examples of what he calls a desire not to “get back to constructive working”, including “Threats to our energy supplies through the interconnectors”, and “a needless ban on the importance of most shellfish to the EU”. One could argue about the rights and wrong of these, but the blog doesn’t do so.
4. I’m very surprised to read the assertion that the ECJ’s role is “minor and residual”. I’m quite sure it doesn’t see itself that way, and a decision affecting the operation of the Protocol would be major and central. To argue that its involvement is anomalous, now that the UK is indeed a third country, seems reasonable to me, and not merely “conceptual”. There are other and better ways of resolving trade disputes.
5. The blog claims that “the Northern Irish protocol needs to be replaced”. This is misleading: Frost talks of “an amended Protocol”. An amendment is not generally thought of as a replacement.
6. Frost expresses the hope that “the poison is drawn from this issue [Northern Ireland] entirely and it is removed from the diplomatic top table once and for all.” Now perhaps he doesn’t mean it; perhaps for some reason he wants the strife to continue. However, I suggest we take him as his word.
7. Frost makes the point that trade between NI and GB is no threat to the single market. Could any reasonable person disagree?
I suspect that the Protocol was signed in bad faith by both sides. The UK was very anxious to complete the deal – Frost says that at the time it was agreed “we didn’t know whether there would be a trade agreement between us and the EU” – and the EU wanted to satisfy Ireland, and the USA, that the peculiar circumstances of the island of Ireland required special consideration, such consideration giving it the opportunity to remind everyone of the malign consequences of leaving the EU. What follows? Do we copy the Irish obsession with the past, which can’t be changed (but can be learned from), or do we try to make things work better in the future?
Just superb.
I’m sorry, I don’t like being a ‘fan boy’ but this sums up the petty, one-eyed approach of the British government to the EU, sadly not only as leavers but all too often as members.
No one who should will read this but it needed to be said.
See also:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19641263.one-quote-brexit-minister-lord-frost-wants-forget/
I cannot believe in religion and i see scant evidence of natural justice. But it may be there is some equilibrium in the universe.
If so, then there must be a massive cosmic wrecking ball arcing toward this so-called government.
“Masterful bit of observation and writing” indeed. And I loved the other phrase of the previous commentator: “A story of little substance beneath the veneer of swashbuckling freedom.” Gilbert & Sullivan springs to mind, or Sarah Connolly’s delightful rendering of Rule Britannia, drawing her sword during the 2009 Last Night of the Proms performance. Who would’ve thought?
Excellent article.
To further quote Burke:-
“The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse” – rather appropriate for the level of power bestowed upon an unelected bureaucrat, charged managing a new relationship with a union, described by opponents of the EU as being “governed by unelected bureaucrats”.
Maybe Frost should write articles for the Daily Express – both extol the same nonsense, just Frost is somewhat more eloquently phased, if not equally unpleasant and misguided.
Everybody should read this. I’m glad l did because l had to turn that man off the television due to what felt like someone headbanging in my Living room.
It’s the ECJ. Despite the EU waiving away a very generous 80% of Food checks from Britain to NI it won’t be enough. The Tories/Unionists want the Court to be gone. It doesn’t matter to them that NI is without the shortages that the rest of us are experiencing. Trade has increased from North to South and that won’t do either. The ECJ is the thorn in what they Imagine Brexit is that gives them ultimate Sovereignty from the EU. And that won’t do for Loyalist Brexiters or the ERG. Despite the UK Government signing up to role of the ECJ. How rogue can Johnson’s Government go! Guessing all the way and a bit more.
Grade C? You are over generous in your marking!
Erudite and masterful analysis. And a delight to read. Of course, Frost was not always a Brexiter. Or at least the Whiskey manufacturers he represented were not, as he was a staunch supporter of the single market etc when he was their mouthpiece. No doubt it is difficult to remain consistent when one turns one’s coat so many times.
Frost’s speech is a masterclass in how not to win friends and influence people.
UK Ministers need a crash course on the works of Edmund Burke and the 1386 Treaty of Windsor as it is only a matter of time before a Reporter raises an awkward question or two.
Burke for example pointed out that the Brits decapitated their King long before the French followed suit. Even then he felt it was not such a smart move to make without having a clear plan of action and landing zone .
If NI is to have the benefit of the Single Market then it is reasonable to expect it to follow the Single Market rule book which means final interpretation rests with ECJ.
Some Europeans think it a bit rich that NI gets the benefits of the Single Market without the Four Freedoms and the rest of the UK gets tariff free trade with the entire EU on the back of this.
Brexit is possibly not over and has yet to begin.
*** stands, applauds ***
Exemplary critical writing which should be read as widely as possible. I hadn’t read your blog for a while and this is a wonderful re-entry point. Off to check out your Patreon now.
80% (eighty percent) less Customs checks on goods between GB and NI: that’s the last (and hopefully final) offer to Johnson & Frost by the EU. Never such concession have ever been granted to any third-party nation in the history of the EU
I don’t like betting but I suspect that J&F will say that’s not enough and will once again raise the stake.
(One should have one hundred eyes to turn them blind on all)
The world can reasonably live with a rogue British government; not quite so with a rogue nation, as this is the impression that the UK has been giving, a step at a time.
Excellent analysis. Frost’s 2020 and 2021 speeches should also be compared to his 2015 discourse in from of a Commons committee: https://www.facebook.com/leedsforeurope/videos/549519726115631
No deal Brexit is back. It will come fast. The UK will realise what it voted in 2016 and 2019. An end to the madness, no more can kicking.
Well said.
Frost is a useful idiot, taking orders from useful idiot Johnson, who in turn does what he has been primed & paid to do by very clever people.
Let us look at what might come next on this trajectory. Note that the French apparently were very reluctant to make this 80% offer, and that EU appetites for further tolerance of idiots is waning.
The Withdrawal Agreement (WA) provided for : citizens rights (settled, just-about-working); transition arrangements (done, gorn); settling up of past budget comittments (ongoing); and Northern Ireland. To this the Trade & Co-Operation Agreement (TCA) added tariff & quota free access (ongoing).
Let us assume that UK invokes Article 16 of the NIP, and that EU sighs and starts talking (of course to itself in an empty room, as the Brexit UK is clearly not listening). Would that be the only EU response ? I think not. The question then becomes how hard and how fast and by what mechanisms might the EU ratchet up the pressure ? Under NIP the EU ought to ‘just’ pursue proportionate measures, but is there a legally valid and politically realistic pathway whereby the EU simply suspends (or withdraws from ) the entire TCA until the UK understands the meaning of the end. And if that pathway exists, then (returning to the WA) it seems that the biggest hostage to fortune is the settling up of the budget – which begs the question when is the phasing of the netting off and how much is at stake in each year, as this might give an insight into how fast the EU might turn up the heat. And can the EU do this whilst leaving the NIP in place (and in play with its original text) so as not to be seen to be the cause of the GFA imploding etc.
Brilliant.
Thanks for drawing our attention to the muddle and mendacity of this speech in detail. But I wonder whether you take him all a bit too seriously.
If, as Cummings is reported to have said (not in your quote above, but elsewhere), the grand strategy was to “get Brexit done” on the best terms that could be negotiated at the time, then pick out the bits the UK did not like later, such inconsistencies become completely understandable.
The speech, in that case, achieves its purpose perfectly: to “re-frame” the facts of the situation in the best interest (as he would see it) of post-Brexit UK, and prepare the ground for the next part of this strategy. And to that end, pretty much anything goes – mischaracterisations, blatant contradictions, self-serving analysis, and all the other polemical tricks you pinpoint. The populism is simply how ideology propagates.
I love your blog – both its legal precision and its touchingly old-fashioned expectation of integrity, or at least straight dealing, on the part of our politicians and their adjunct bureaucrats. You assume good faith, take them at their word, and weigh their propositions seriously! This is indeed a precious exercise in any democratic polity.
But the hard truth is that Mr Frost and his ilk do not care about accuracy, still less legal accuracy – they are playing the game of politics, which operates according to different rules. Their true audience is not lawyers, it is the mass of the voting public. Their true object is not truth, but hearts and minds. We are squarely in tabloid territory.
And, in the case of Mr Frost, there’s a psychological motivation too: his entire career – and his place in history – are intimately bound up with the success of Brexit or, to be more precise, the need for it to be perceived as a success.
He’s doing what people like him, in the corner he has got himself into, would be expected to do.
If so, the end game is the disposal of democracy. Many of us have pondered whether some other systems might not be worse. But i fear they all are. Long ago De Gaulle described the French electorate as cattle. But he did have integrity. The current UK cabinet is purged of it. The awsome leveraged purchasing power of the net will open them to the highest bidder. And short of revolt, i see no easy way back from where the UK is heading.
Terrific opening and even more brilliant concluding paragraphs. But the bit in between was the certainly the best analysis of the noise around Brexit (especially that coming from our unelected Brexit Minister) I have read in a very long time. Thank you.
An elegant post.
I think the temptation to suggest that Frost’s speech is the product of an inelegant mind – though tempting – is mistaken.
The intended audience for Frost’s speech is domestic – and if he uses the tools of a sophist – that is because he has (underneath it all) contempt for his audience.
The political challenge that Frost (and Johnson) face is that their version of Brexit remains unpopular. Speeches such as Frost’s are required to bolster support.
It doesn’t matter that what Frost says isn’t true – it feels true to Brexiteer true believers. It’s our own version of truthiness – and ultimately, if you trust the EU over your own government, you must be a muesli-eating traitor, n’est-ce pas? (copyright Daniel Hannan et al).
So – pitching Burke quotations into a speech intended for Boomers and CD2 voters isn’t a flaw. It’s tone perfect.
Cancelling the NIP is a requirement for an FTA with the US – they will want to import GMO agri-goods without labelling (but such food will require labelling unless the NIP is amended).
The EU knows that GM crops remain deeply unpopular in the UK – and that it might be enough to kill off an FTA.
Hence our completely unscrutinised trade deals with Aus and the CPTPP – which will not allow us to erect trade barriers on a precautionary basis.
NI remaining subject to EU SPS rules becomes a very big obstacle. And a potential model for Scotland or Wales – whose farmers will face significant obstacles competing against the US and Aus.
Burke fits the bill perfectly, I think.
What an excellent post. I am reminded that Frost has a very flexible mind – he used to think Brexit would be a problem.
I am happy to contribute as proposed David but I don’t use Paypal and since Brexit had to surrender my UK bank account. Is Apple Pay doable?
Firstly, there has to be a border between the EU and a non-EU country; in this case, the logical place for that border to be is where there is an existing border – between NI and the RoI. That appears to have been rejected both on political grounds (as contrary to the letter and/or spirit of the GFA) and on security grounds (arguably a concession to terrorism or the threat of terrorism); before the Troubles there was a customs border between North and South. But of course now we have the GFA which seems to me to be the root cause of the issue because of its attempts to be all things to all people. The possibility of problems arising should the UK exit the EU, which was raised at the time, was apparently just swept under the carpet as “never gonna happen”. Thanks, Tony (and Dave).
Secondly, the Protocol has been held to derogate from the union created by the Act of Union 1800 – so Unionists (in NI and GB) have a legitimate cause for complaint. The negotiations therefore do sadly have a role to play in NI politics – and vice versa, especially as the DUP appear to be losing ground both to the right (TUV) and the left (Alliance). But isn’t derogation from the union the direction of travel anyway by virtue of devolution? Should the debate not then acknowledge the internal “sovereignty” of each constituent part of the UK? NI voted by a good majority to stay in the EU but is being dragged out against its wishes. To ignore this, as the Brexiteers are doing, seems monumentally hypocritical but they are getting away with it, thanks in large part to our so called independent (but billionaire controlled) media.
Thirdly, anything Frost has to say has to be aimed not at the three people in England who care about any problems in NI, but (a) to try to get the best deal he can from the EU, and (b) not to give ammunition to Scots and Welsh nationalists; so it’s not an entirely philosophical exercise. The negotiations nonetheless do carry with them significant constitutional issues and as such should be conducted with care. Frost is, however, conducting himself like a bull in a china shop which is in stark contrast with the EU which appears more diplomatic – especially in its apparent willingness to engage with business in NI. From the reports I’ve seen that appears to be more than just theatre and so represents a threat to Brexiteer characterisation of the EU being simply “evil”.
Fourthly, it’s just not feasible to “get rid” of the Protocol altogether. The practical solution is to minimise its effects on GB-NI trade. Frost seems to have secured some significant concessions here but it remains to be seen, of course, if those concessions will be enough. The latest concessions could arguably have been given much earlier and no doubt the Brexiteers will make much of that fact. I think that’s a weakness for the EU but, as I read in the Irish Times, the EU’s view apparently is that Brexiteers can spin that however they like because the outcome remains beneficial to NI regardless of how it is portrayed.
Frost and his fellow fundamentalist Brexiteers seem intent on “winning” at any cost such is the sheer desperation to “get brexit done” even though there appears to be no agreement anywhere as to what that actually means. Immense damage has already been done to the UK’s reputation and any “victory” will surely be Pyrrhic – at least outwardly.
Personally, I think the UK establishment (currently embodied by the Tories but also broadly represented by “safe hands” Starmer) has simply discarded its mask of reasonableness and civility (perhaps this is where Burke becomes relevant) and is embarking on a race to the bottom of ruthless application of power – shadowing the US, Russia and China. The UK has vast wealth and an intricate spider’s web of off-shore “dependencies” through which the establishment, for its own benefit and certainly not in the interests of the general public, can exert considerable influence – virtually invisible (except for occasional, largely ignored leaks like the Panama papers) and completely bypassing democratic structures.
I despair for my children’s future.
Sorry, should have said, “where GB is heading”.
Incidentally, my daughter who just spent a few weeks with us in France had to blank out the EU -UK sticker on her car before going back (sad, but true) and replace it with a GB sticker. Quid NI alors?
Going to a quote book to find something that sums up the current UK government gives the following:
Blessed are the forgetful: for they get the better even of their blunders.
Superb analysis. The speech was not written for historical or factual accuracy it was simply for mass consumption by those blindly convinced about Brexit where inconvenient facts and home truths remain subservient to belief. I am sure the responses you receive will give ample evidence of this.
Thank you for this excellent post. Very useful demolition of Frost’s references to Edmund Burke, whose views on the *binding* referendum, had he been alive to comment, would perhaps have been unprintable.
Brilliant, incisive and beautifully structured.
The wilful disregard for credibility defies all sense. Not only does this behaviour poison the well for international relations, but such deceit cannot have passed unnoticed at Holyrood and other assemblies. The case that Westminster is a dishonest associate has been reinforced.
> populism means doing what people want
IIRC, the 2019 GE (unlike the previous one) was fought almost entirely on the battleground of Brexit.
Specifically, the Conservatives and NI Unionists campaigned on the promise that they would “Get Brexit Done.”
And almost every other party (including inter alia Labour, LD, Green, SNP, Plaid, SDLP, Alliance) promised IIRC either to stop Brexit outright or (more commonly) to offer a second referendum now that the contours of Brexit were coming in to focus to see whether or not people actually wanted to go ahead now that they could have some vague idea what they were actually voting for.
And underneath the huge majority bequeathed to the former as an artefact of the not-actually-particularly-democratic FPTP electoral system, there was a clear plurality of votes for the latter.
I would be grateful if you could explain why politicians, journalists and commentators from across the political spectrum seem to have agreed implicitly never to ever mention this embarrassing fact, but instead to unite in acknowledging that the current government’s enormous Parliamentary majority gives it an unquestionable *moral* authority to define The Will Of The People as it sees fit. (Without ever having its attention drawn to how well this policy fits with the thirteenth of Umberto Eco’s Fourteen Principles…)
Fascinating.
I’ve not read all the comments, so this may have been pointed out already.
“The one thing in common between the two speeches is that Frost is brashly defiant in his support for Brexit.”
In June 2016 he wrote an article in which he demonstrated his brashly defiant support for Remain.
In it he wrote:
“If…a country is already part of a customs union and has already adapted its trading arrangements to it, the case for change has to be overwhelming.
It isn’t”
and
“Britain will be demandeur and so it will be Britain that has to make the concessions to get the deal…………..in short, even the best-case outcome won’t be as good as what we have now, and we won’t be able to negotiate the best-case outcome anyway, because in real life you never can”
That’s quite an about turn……
Thank you for this crisply clear analysis. It is applicable not only here but to any situation where a person, while boasting sophistication, is deluding themselves and only the very acute can see what that person is really about.