(Original post by BasicMistake)
I'm not going to flog this very dead horse any more after this but here we go...
You said I gave a quick comment without listening to your point.
I called you a hypocrite because you did the same when you simply replied "You won't because they have been banished from negotiating by the remain camp". I then explained how that comment bore no relevance to my point about offering solutions to their own policy.
There, I really can't be arsed to explain it any more simply.
Oh dear, you're doing very well are you? I'm going to resist the temptation to respond in the same manner in which you have.
If you remove the sections I have highlighted in bold you're post would have a totally different feel and be very effective. You see all you do by adding these bold paragraphs in is devaule you're points and highlight yourself as a person whom likes to belittle and put people to try to lift yourself up to greater heights than you're words are accrediting you with on their merit alone.
I will continue this pretending you have not acted in such a condensending manner and not wrote the unnecessary paragraphs so you can see how changing your attitude improve you're debating skills in the future.
Thank you for explaining, the fog has cleared now
Upon revisting what was said I have found I have made a mistake. It was on this topic you highlighted, I have got myself mixed I thought you was quoting something I said elsewhere so apologies for that.
Having reread the debate, I can see more where you are coming from, you said
*I picked those out specifically because they are the most direct and most obvious legal issues that come with no deal. There are a million other problems with no deal that need answers and we aren't getting any solutions from the Leave side*
I replied in good faith, maybe because of the condensending manner in which had previously used in this topic even though what I said in good faith, I was probably tarrng you with a brush you should not of been tarred with, for this I apologise. However in my defence I did fully clarify what I meant and I did state where you were correct.
* I said you are very correct, the Brexit secretaries have all been 'brexiteers' however its not that simple in reality. For example I am not sure about how much you are aware of David Davis's time and the reason for his registration? However he resigned because returning control of our laws in any real sense was being made impossible by his remain supporting bosses. The problem only got worse for his successors, May announced she would now lead the crunch talks with the EU only two weeks ago into Dominic Raab's appointment.
I'm sorry to say political games are being played and scapegoats are being set up.
I am more than willing return to the points of the debate, if we can start debating with out the name calling?