No - my point is that he would give Cameron the options and leave the choice to him.

Cameron may have decided that a few token gestures could be negotiated quickly and would be "enough" when far more could have been available.

Are you seriously saying he was impartial?

Now you're just making stuff up to suit your failed argument - you don't know do you

Team Leave are calling for a pro-Exit Ambassador so they don't want someone impartial.

The Government can choose the most compliant lackey they can find. It will be of absolutely no use to them whatsoever once the suicide button has been pressed and they're being owned by the hugely experienced EU negotiators. They may hate the messages brought, but they can only live in denial for so long.

IDS was pathetic as ever this morning on the matter. His gullible supporters may be happy with "Brexit means Brexit", but the rest of the world is laughing.

We are truly lambs to the slaughter.

Ideally you want someone who is impartial in terms of the advice they give but committed to the process in respect of which they are advising. The concern in this case was that he was/is neither of those things. Would be like having Nick Clegg or Peter Mandelson as our chief negotiator.

The hypocrisy abounds in Brexit land (as ever). Impartiality has nothing to do with it. They want someone to think as they do.

But was this concern justified? That's what we should be asking.

I have had dealings with the Civil Service and know the way they work.

None of us know what Cameron was told.

So if an avid remainer like Cameron chose to ignore Lansdale's advise why would the Leave camp want or seek his advice?

Woe woe thrice is woe, the remain soothsayer has spoken

When did Sir Ivan Rogers replace David Davies as our chief negotiator or are you letting your imagination run wild?

Casting aspersions on someone's personal trustworthiness because you don't like what they are saying is pretty desperate stuff, to be honest. Maybe you have inside personal information to back up that aspersion.

Did he? Or did he listen and decide to try to negotiate from a poor position anyway?
Neither of us knows.

You clearly missed the point of my comparison. I never claimed or stated that Sir Ivan was our chief negotiator. My point was that having an adviser who was perceived as neither impartial or committed to the process upon which he was advising, would be the same as having Clegg or Mandelson as our chief negotiator in that process.

The issue is how far his views were objective or subjective.

He didn't question his personal trustworthiness - he questioned his impartiality. Not the same thing.

Are you saying he was not impartial, do you have any evidence to back this up ? or is it not saying what we want to to say means you are not impartial, saying the truth means not impartial, being a yes man means you are impartial

So now he ignored Lansdale's superior advice and better deal, and went for the lesser/weaker option? So what do YOU think was Lansdale's advice was?

He was an avid remainer, which hardly makes him impartial does it.

So working on your way of thinking, anyone in government or anyone in the civil service who voted to remain should loose thier jobs and be replaced, because its not possible to do thier jobs as they cannot be impartial ?

That's the brexit way. Look at the hatchet job that the tabloids did when the supreme court had the sheer gall to state that Parliament should get a say in the process.

"openly gay fencing judges" was their response, plus they were branded as traitors etc.

Brexshitters want there to be a total echo chamber, filled with nothing more than positive, if totally incorrect and false, "news" about how the UK will be the world leader in everything as soon as we leave

The person leading the negotiations should be impartial or someone who wants Brexit to work. He was a rabid Europhile and his heart obviously wasn't in it.

Would your firm place someone in charge of a relocation who wanted to stay put?

Calm down dear.

Where is the proof of this, proof that he's sabotaged some EU negotiation to fit his own personal interest?

It's nothing more than fiction, invented by Brexshitters who can't understand how the civil service works...

Besides, this guy was reporting the facts. "wanting Brexit to work" will not change the fact that it will be a long and arduous process that will ultimately be utterly pointless, but damaging for the UK

Make the most of your sneering window, which will close very shortly.