It was a shining example of the continuing parade of the disingenuous.
Adronis scored a good point about Far-fetched's fragmented messages during the official Leave Campaign, then did the usual Lefty extension smeary trick to characterise the whole Leave Campaign as the fragmentation (as if the Campaign was just another political party, keeping the stupidity of political tribalism going).
Sadly, Far-Fetched didn't have the wit to challenge when and how the official Remain Campaign argued in favour of political integration with Europe. (That could have been fun: would Adronis have dared to claim (to lie?) about when and how the Remain Campaign extolled the virtues of exterminating meaningful local democracy on strategic policy choices for the "greater good"? Certainly, the Remain Campaign contaminated the EFTA/EEA "Norway" option by lying, seeking to rule out the one policy choice that would have enabled trade with Europe without political integration.)
Far-fetched, with the assistance of caller Lauren, scored a fatally good point about Adronis' double-standards.
Lauren correctly recalled that the referendum of 1975 was mis-sold to the people as a trading deal, a Common Market. In 1971, the then government - the Tory government led by Edward Heath - sought no explicit democratic mandate for joining the European Economic Community. The government kept very quiet the agenda behind the Common Market of continuous political integration. So, no referendum. Lauren recalled that those few politicians who recognised the political integrationist agenda were dismissed as the equivalent of conspiracy theorists.
It was the subsequent Labour government that held a referendum in 1975, and the referendum was directed onto the mis-selling scandal of the Common Market as an agreement only about trade (the "Common Market").
So why was Adronis so keen on a second referendum about leaving the European Union when no referendum explicitly took place about joining it? And why, Far-fetched wondered, did the Labour Party consistently hold no referenda about subsequent European Union treaties (most notably the Lisbon Treaty, the once-called "Constitution of Europe", that the French famously rejected in 2005)?
Adronis blathered, because he could have no straight answer for any of this. This is indeed the problem with the double-standards that Adronis apparently needs to defend. Remainiacs, like Leftists, cannot practice what they preach, and simply cannot be consistent even with their own "principles" of the purest, expedient corruption. Remainiacs' primary objective is a state of unaccountable anti-democracy, an admission to conceal from the voting taxpayer at every cost.
Having waffled his way through the inconsistency of the UK being "a Parliamentary democracy" (more about that later), Adronis ended up claiming the falsehood that the referendum of the 1970s wasn't an exercise in diversion. This drew blocking interjections from both Far-fetched and caller Lauren.
Adronis was (and is) blatantly wrong. The 1975 referendum question was:
The Government has announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom's terms of membership of the European Community.
Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?
Et voilà, emboldened above, the mis-selling scandal. The wilful and blatant mis-linking of the European Community (the barely-mentioned political integrationist bit) with the Common Market (the trading element that dominated the mainstream media, the propaganda to wash over the masses, the equivalent of 2016's Project Fear).
What was inconsistent about Adronis' drone about "Parliamentary democracy"? Adronis defended the lack of referendum in 1971 on the basis that a Parliamentary democracy doesn't do referenda. When asked about 1975, he contradicted himself and then lied about the nature of referendum in the minds of the electorate. Adronis implied that the electorate made a conscious choice in favour of political integration, that the people weren't lied to in 1975, but were lied to in 2016. Then Adronis changed tack again, warbling on about a second referendum of 2018/2019 because a referendum of 2016 had already happened. And, of course, without a single hint of shame, Adronis said of himself that he was "a democrat". Adronis came across as being far too dim to have realised the repeated own-goals that he had just performed on-air.
Adronis might have recovered some ground if he had spelt out the biggest lie of the Remain Campaign of 2016: the wilful failure to spell out the advantages of unlimited political integration, why the "opts-out" were wrong and how much better life would have been for ordinary taxpaying plebs if unelected technocrats in Brussels would result in better government than a Tory-run shower in Westminster. But Adronis appeared to have been too dim to have deployed this honest, up-front, respectable, credible line of argument.
It does make one wonder how much cognitive dissonance a Remainiac needs to suffer to find any of Adronis' performance credible.
I find Adronis guilty of double-standards. Adronis' shameless display is so offensive, it justifiably takes all the scrutiny away from Far-fetched.
Adronis proves that, in general, all Remainiacs still reckon they are immune from being held to account for their systemic deceit. Remainiacs keep on demanding as many referenda as it takes to integrate-by-stealth into an anti-democratic series of treaties that lock out the taxpaying demos from policy choices, resulting in a state of total taxation without a shred of meaningful representation.
Ergo, with or without the assistance of the Chequers scam - oops sorry, "plan" - the UK is still heading for civil war.
(Later in the show, another caller, Mark, caught Far-fetched out on one of Far-fetched's inconsistencies... the tribalism continues...)