Money back guarantees are not on the table

One of the mantras of European Union negotiating diplomacy is that any proposal on the table at any particular time is "a good basis for negotiation."
This is a useful phrase which can be deployed at any point in the negotiating process on any EU subject, regardless of the official national political position of the government concerned.
It is a valid and incontrovertible statement up to the moment that signatures are scrawled on bits of paper and deals are finally done.
"It's a good basis for negotiation" means everything from: "We haven't read the details yet, but we don't like what we're hearing" to "We've read the text, and we will oppose it to the bitter end", right through to "This plan is a dead duck."
Rarely does the phrase actually mean: "It's a good basis for negotiation."
And most often, when an EU minister or official uses that phraseology, it means: "We want more and we mean to get it."
So when a Polish diplomat described the agriculture compromise which emerged from the EU summit in Brussels last Friday as "a good basis for negotiation," ears pricked up and questions were asked.
"So, you don't like it then," asked one astute reporter.

The real answer is yes and no. Any deal at all is good because it advances the prospects of enlargement on time, but all the incoming member states are already wise to the ways of western-style negotiating, and they know there is always room for improvement.
Which is why today in Copenhagen, the Polish Prime Minister will politely listen to the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's presentation of the proposals, and repeat, more or less: "This is a good basis for negotiation."
What he actually means is that Poland is in danger of not getting as much money as it thinks it should from Brussels in 2004. And what should it get? The answer is more than it did in 2003.
The figures are less important than the principle: in a generous move, the EU has been giving the applicant countries pre-accession cash for some time now. It is a free gift.
But of course in 2004, these countries will be in the club, and they will start paying their club membership fees.
Those fees will be more than covered by the continued subsidies and receipts from the EU - but the Poles are concerned that the size of the cheque in 2004 is at least as big as that a year earlier: anything else is a concession too far.
Which is why the complaints are now beginning that the financial package is "unfair."
The fact is that you can do anything with figures, and the applicant countries indeed do.
The starkest fact is that in 2013, when the benefits of EU membership bite fully, the 10 newest EU member states will share in a pot of direct farm payments worth €5 billion. The other 15 member states will share ten times as much.
"There's no doubt about it: they're being shafted," said one veteran at the EU summit last Friday.

"They're lucky to be guaranteed to be net beneficiaries at all," said another.
The next few weeks will see the ten deploying all the negotiating wiles of the more experienced 15.
But there is little interest in causing trouble: already support for EU membership in the 10 is not as high as it might be.
In Poland only 52% support membership and if an embarrassing "no" is to be avoided in next year's referendum, some swift public relations is going to be needed.
Complaining that Poland is being ripped off might well be counter productive. Far better, perhaps, to highlight the fact that the best part of e1 billion will flow into the exchequer every year from 2004.
After all, the current EU member states have reached a half-baked deal on agriculture on the basis that there is no point letting a vulgar squabble over money threaten the launch of enlargement on time.
It is a philosophy Rasmussen will have relayed today to the eager applicants, who some fear may be getting a little greedy.
Only one thing is certain: the EU financial package is considered to be "a good basis for negotiation."
Let battle commence.