Read on Twitter
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. https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1334159857054851073
The whole argument is based around ignoring the counterfactual. These people are imbeciles. https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1334159857054851073
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.
And it's really just a matter of weeks, with there being benefits to both approaches.
If these people had the slightest bit of intelligence, they would be taking on the substance of what those few weeks would gain us, but instead they just want to focus on the fact we finished first.
If there was a modicum of thought to their position then they would be addressing why we wanted those limited benefits over the limited benefits of doing it the EU's way.
But no, they make up fake law and then imply a political decision by the EU that we weren't at the table for was binding on us.
This isn't rational discourse, this is arguing with people who have no intention to discuss issues beyond the kind of conversations we had in the playground of our Primary school.
We can't go on like this. Not if we want to succeed as a country.
/End
/End
