For those keeping track, as of this week the rule was:
The EU are negotiating in bad faith because they aren't giving us the trade deal the WA guarantees.
Today:
The WA definitely doesn't guarantee a trade deal.
I don't mind making these notifications, but as Brexit goes on I think we might need a government institution to keep track of what was said, done, and written down as it changes from day to day.
1. Well if someone hadn’t removed the context and allowed people like Clair Fox to interpret it in the context of her beliefs, then maybe things would have gone better today. (Thread)
2. Because when I read the article you posted, from the context it was presented, I believed that it was a big admission that the push to stay in the EU led to the hardest of Brexit.
3. Then when I read through it, it was about strategic mistakes which I didn’t think are overly controversial.
Originally Harry came in with false law, and now he is arguing that we would have been held back because the EU countries agreed to take the longer route, but we didn't have to agree...
The whole argument is based around ignoring the counterfactual. These people are imbeciles.
Apart from the fact this is disingenuous because most of the response was down to a rubbish take on the regulation restrictions, which has been quietly swept under the table.
It just ignores the fact we weren't in the room when the decision was made. We don't know what the decision would have been had we been in the room.
(I may have just made up that 11 years, but it goes back to some declaration or other before 2010, and they did report that particular event objectively to be fair.)
This is my favourite from the country who have shouted "We're prepared to walk away" for the last 4 years, and I don't remember anyone calling them out and saying "Well that will be a significant miscalculation".