You are stating opinion as fact and positioning it as a likely event - When reading most others they are talking about likely actions and outcomes or at least prefacing it as an opinion, you position "what you would do" as "what you think will be the outcome" and there is then discussion on something that is on no one in powers agenda.
for example:
"We conceded the point on the sequencing of negotiations on the first day, so that one has gone.
We shouldn't have done so - it doesn't mean we can't change our minds. We can tell the EU that they can have this closed now if they want but the only way to do so will be to accept no rights at all for any EU citizen. Or they can debate it with us later and get a result they're more likely to want"
how likely is this to happen, we have conceded this point it is very unlikely to change (unless you think otherwise) its a red herring and brings nothing to how we proceed, there are many other examples of this. I have a load of points of how negotiations should go but they will not as those doing the negotiations do not agree, rather than discussing a non-existing outcome surely there is more value in discussing how the actions of those making the decisions will play out.
