In addition to the usual pre-plenary session coordination meetings, I spent some time today in a meeting with the Presidents of the Committee’s three groups, where we slowly edged our way closer towards a decision where there was at the outset, as I put it, ‘perfect disagreement’. The respective positions were (I exaggerate only slightly): ABC, BCA and CAB. I think I have already referred in a post to Arrow’s Paradox or ‘Impossibility Theorem’ and I was reminded of it by this situation. Nevertheless, there is always potential for some convergence if, for example, the relative strengths of participants’ preferences differ. It was, for me, a fascinating insight into the Committee’s basic working method, something sometimes dubbed the art of ‘dynamic compromise’. The whole culture of the Committee is based on this process and its underlying assumption: that a common position between different interests will always be stronger than a set of individual positions.