Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed - is a common legal doctrine that sets out the rules for a negotiation. It means that work can be done to progress agreement without prejudicing other discussions. It also gives both parties the ability to reflect holistically and not be held to earlier agreement with a promise of flexibility further down the line, which doesn't come. This isn't really the issue here, its a very workable approach. The issue is the "divorce before trade" approach which is inflexible.
In terms of stance:
- if they accept we owe nothing then we are "buying" a trade deal, whereas if we agree we are paying our debts, then they are gifting us a trade deal. Its just about convincing the other that your position is fair and reasonable.
Thanks, that makes good sense.