@Squander Two: Ah, sorry, I didn't quite understand how your analogy worked. So, you were comparing the situation where none of the rights of the UK delegation were removed with a hypothetical situation where Scottish MPs would have their voting rights removed? Well, in that comparison, the latter sounds really bad, the former not so much.
I'd like to make a distinction between the (objective) facts and an unnamed person's subjective opinions and impressions. The facts are that there was a Working Party, that the delegates from most of the EU came with certain ideas, that the delegates from the UK came with different ideas, that everyone was allowed to speak and no vote was left uncounted and that the ideas of the majority were adopted. Everything else are one unnamed person's personal (subjective) impressions, opinions and speculations.
Their trail of thoughts is, apparently, that the fact that the British input didn't make the final cut can only be explained by it being ignored, "irrespectively of the arguments" (which assumes, obviously, that those arguments were valid). Then, trying to explain such behaviour of the other delegations, another leap is made that it was because the UK's soon departure from the EU was a sure thing, and that that was already clear to everyone else in the EU.
I don't think that that makes too much sense. As no one denies, the British delegation participated in the Working Party and, regardless of whether their suggestions were later ignored or not, they were heard, just like everyone else's. If Britain had brought to that WP something that was good for Europe (and not maybe just the UK), do you really think that it would have been ignored simply for the "fact" that it was leaving? I think not. My opinion is that the rest would think "Hey, UK sometimes has good ideas. It's too bad it's leaving." To make an analogy myself, if you knew that your business partner was going to leave your venture, but he came to you with a proposal that was going to make your company money, and would continue to make you money even after he left, would you ignore what he told you simply because he was leaving? That doesn't make any sense. That's how angry couples might think, not the majority of people in charge of pan-European policies. Having already heard them, had the British ideas been good for Europe, Europe would have taken them. It's that simple.
My conclusion is that the entire story is a bit of Euro-sceptic propaganda, carrying two messages: first that EU is ostracizing, ignoring the UK (being bad to the UK) and second that the UK's departure from the EU is a sure thing and everyone already knows.