Where we're not wrong or where the cost of settling is so much that it is totally disproportionate to the harm or the error that we made, we're not going to settle.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Any negotiation on the basis of land for peace is a fatal mistake.
For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.
It's the perfect definition of a settlement. Both parties didn't get what they wanted.
The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for.
Having led many negotiations with countries outside the E.U. in the past, we would never enter the same compromises and reach the same good outcomes with states that don't shoulder the responsibilities and costs of the common market.
From the ashes of a financial crash, there is a chance to create a new economic settlement that is more equal, sustainable and democratic.
I think most conflicts do end with negotiated settlements; some don't, but most do.
I think a lot of people settle with comfort. I've kinda pushed my whole life not to do that. There's nothing wrong with settling, it's definitely an easier life than the one I've chosen to live.
Where we have been incorrect in what we have done, then I think we have an obligation to settle.
All peoples have evolved extraordinarily precise ways of settling issues about the things that matter to them.