5 upvotes, 7 direct replies (showing 7)
Real question is is there proof that this is a legitimate document? It could be written by anyone. Maybe that's why the media ignored it.
Comment by [deleted] at 27/11/2019 at 12:35 UTC
41 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Well, considering that Corbyn just put it out and he's a member of the privy counsel and that Boris hasn't denied it, it's safe to say it's legit.
Comment by Outer_Nab_One at 27/11/2019 at 15:41 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It was seen by the Telegraph back in July and there are so many named attendees on the HMG side probably real.
Comment by JyveAFK at 30/11/2019 at 23:33 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
In retrospect... appears... totally legit.
Comment by Captain_English at 27/11/2019 at 12:59 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I honestly think they just missed it.
Comment by pirateinthebathtub at 28/11/2019 at 23:32 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Has this been confirmed as the actual document as everyone is writing about the link? Can anyone explain why there is a use of contractions when this is not advised for UK government reports and why the language is informal at times?
Comment by poodlefaker at 27/11/2019 at 13:48 UTC
-2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I agree, and your comment just hit on something else I couldn't grasp in my earlier comment ^. This reads like an amended document of a variety of sources from other trade talks - probably unrelated.
Comment by quanticflare at 27/11/2019 at 13:55 UTC
-2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Probably waiting on confirmation before reporting it. That, and waiting for BJ to state his position on the NHS to maximise damage to his credibility.