Where does the journey begin?

The first step will be for the political leaders of both sides to agree and sign off formal negotiating mandates for their negotiators. These documents outline in varying degrees of detail the goals and limits of what they’re being ordered to go out and negotiate.

Negotiators can’t complete an agreement that’s contrary to their mandate without an overriding decision from political leaders. Therefore, not only the content but language used is critical as it determines wiggle room. Precise versus vague language in a mandate is the difference between being sent to the shops with a credit card for “some food” and being given a detailed list and exact change.

If the mandate says, “agreement must have no tariffs or quotas” then that’s a hard red line. If it says “the agreement should aim to achieve tariff and quota free trade” then negotiators can fall short without violating their mandate.

How are mandates put together?

Every country has its own process for putting together and approving a negotiating mandate. In the EU, we know this to be an extensive consultation process across its Member States, with approval likely to come at a February 25th meeting of Ministers.

In the UK, it could either take the form of an extensive public consultation and cross-Whitehall process, or Dominic Cummings talking directly to Machiavelli’s ghost via a ouija board full of Agile Development buzz words. There are strong arguments for both approaches.

Armed with this mandate, they’ll form teams and begin travelling back and forth between the UK and Brussels for negotiating rounds.

Wait, you skipped a step. What does a negotiating team look like?

Sorry.

A negotiating team consists of a Chief Negotiator, leading an increasingly specialized team below them. I have in fact written an entire guide to typical negotiating teams here.

In most cases negotiating teams are drawn from the trade ministry, with attached specialists from other ministries and agencies to supplement the political science and law nerds with some actual knowledge. In this case, the UK’s team is going to be drawn primarily from the Prime Minister’s Department.

What happens at a negotiating round?

Negotiating rounds typically take place once every few months in windowless meeting rooms in alternating capitals.

At a typical round the negotiating teams will break up into their specialist areas and meet with counterparts from other side to try to make progress. For example, the financial services negotiators might all sit down together in one room, while the agriculture tariff leads sit down in another.

Exactly how many of these occur at once will vary. For example, the US-Canada agreement CETA had 30 chapters, plus individual schedules for both parties in goods, services and government procurement. In practice however, each of the negotiators was likely working on multiple chapters and each day of a negotiation round might have involved meetings on only a selection.

Do they start with a blank piece of paper?

Almost never. In most cases, one side or even both will have submitted a draft version of whatever the team will be working on. This could be the draft text of a chapter, or perhaps an initial offer outlining which tariffs that side is prepared to reduce, and how much.

The other side then takes that draft and marks it up, indicating with square brackets all the things it can’t accept and adding draft alternatives of its own.

At every round, the two sides sit over this heavily marked up text and try to remove square brackets by either convincing the other side to drop their objections, withdrawing the request, or finding an alternative proposal that works for both sides.

Simply deleting square brackets when the other side isn’t looking is apparently frowned upon. Don’t ask how I know.

Then what?

After a few hours loudly debating the legal implications of various punctuation marks, the negotiating teams will reconvene and report back up their chain of command on progress made, if any.

More senior members of the team, up to and including the Chief Negotiator may then decide to authorize trade-offs or additional flexibility in some areas.

What have the Chief Negotiators been doing this whole time?

Whatever they damn well please.

No really.

It varies. In some negotiations Chief Negotiators will be sequestered together working on the most contentious and political sensitive issues. In other negotiations they’ll float around the breakout rooms, lending a hand in whichever sub-negotiation they feel they can do the most good in on the day. In most, they’ll do at least a little of both.

It’s also impossible to rule out they’re off playing golf while telling their counterparts they’re floating around and their colleagues they’re locked in with counterparts. That idea is free but tips are appreciated, for any Chiefs reading this.

In the UK-EU negotiations, Chiefs are going to have an especially heavy load of non-negotiating work to do. The press corps promises to be voracious in its appetite for updates, and they’ll both have complex constituencies at home to manage.

So what about between rounds, do negotiators just nap and play Dungeons & Dragons?

No, despite how many times I pitched this.

Between rounds, negotiators have two critical jobs.

First, consultations. To remain functional, trade negotiation teams have to be far smaller than they would be if everyone with a legitimate interest in proceedings was invited to hang out in the room. This means that between rounds, it’s up to the negotiators to make sure all the relevant stakeholders inside and outside government are as across the latest developments as they’re allowed to be.

Second, clearance. Not having all the relevant stakeholders and experts in the room during rounds means negotiators are often times flying somewhat by the seat of their pants. The time between rounds is when they have a chance to take the potentially insane things they’ve tentatively agreed to with the other side and run them past people who actually know what they’re talking about for approval.

They’ll also be strategizing for upcoming rounds and working on new draft proposals they’ll hit the other side with.

So does that mean we’ll get to see work-in-progress texts?

Traditionally, trade negotiators have been loath to release negotiating texts before they’re completed. If you’re interested in understanding the debate about this, I wrote an article on secrecy and Brexit you might enjoy for its Justin Beiber references.

Since the debacle that was TTIP (the US-EU trade deal that wasn’t), the European Union has been far more transparent in its trade negotiation practices. You’re still unlikely to see every revised version of the evolving agreement text, but the EU at least should give you something to look at.

The UK is still determining what it’s approach to negotiations will be. If the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations are any indication, whatever they land on probably isn’t going to lower my blood pressure any.

What about the really big questions?

Most trade negotiations include at least a handful of issues that are simply too difficult to resolve at officials level. These often arise when the mandates of the two sides include requests or red lines which are too directly contrary to sidestep and too specifically worded to fudge.

In many ways, the goal of negotiators during their many rounds is to isolate these issues by resolving everything else so that ministers or even national leaders can do the final haggling over these big ticket items.

Negotiators may also try to lay the groundwork for that final haggle by working on the legal language for options they’re not ready to accept yet. “We’re not going to do this, but if we were this is what the legal language would look like.”

So if I see a leaked text and there’s something in it I hate, I shouldn’t panic?

You should only panic a moderate amount.

First, if the language is in square brackets that means one side hasn’t agreed to it. In negotiations the rules of courtesy allow any side to include anything they want in the draft text, no matter how ludicrous or unlikely to actually be accepted, provided it is in square brackets.

Second, all trade negotiations operate on the principle of ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.’ This applies even to chapters considered “Closed” because all of its square brackets have been removed and both sides are happy with it.

Still, if you see text in a draft deal under negotiations that’s problematic for you then you should be vocal about it. The sheer amount of focus on this deal means it’s likely to be one uniquely swayed by the force of public opinion.

As an outside observer, what should I be listening out for?

There are standard lines all trade negotiating teams use to talk publicly about their progress. These are largely meaningless.

Greatest hits include:

“Both sides are looking to conclude an ambitious agreement.”

“Negotiations are friendly, frank and constructive.”

“We’re hoping to conclude by…“

Most of these could mean anything from an agreement being complete except for debate about the final font choice to the two parties being so deadlocked the Chief Negotiators are asking for rest transfers to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiations.

So there’s nothing to listen for?

Not at all, but you have to focus on specific issues rather than broad motherhood lines. Parties tend to go into a negotiation with very firm public positions and then soften their rhetoric over time as the reality of where a mutually acceptable deal might lie emerges.

Things to look out for: