5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Which is why I said it.

To highlight the hypocrisy of Remainer Labour supporters who called for a second Brexit referendum (before actually leaving) while simultaneously claiming there is no need for Labour to call a General Election given the UK's clear "voters remorse" at electing this current shower of imbeciles that are doing the opposite of what they said they would do.

So you agree that those Brexiters who criticised Remainers who called for a 'Peoples Vote' as being undemocratic, but who now call for an immediate GE are guilty of hypocrisy.

Excellent. A rare moment of accord.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

So you agree that those Brexiters who criticised Remainers who called for a 'Peoples Vote' as being undemocratic, but who now call for an immediate GE are guilty of hypocrisy.

No.

It would have been hypocritical if they called for a second General Election BEFORE Labour had formed a government.

But that didn't happen.

Nice try though Raymond 😄.

On 2/10/2026 at 10:31 AM, JonnyF said:

If he had any pride or dignity he would go.

Unfortunately, he has the morals of an alley cat. He will need to be forced out, which will happen very soon IMO.

Trouble is, that leaves the likes of Lammy the buffoon, Rayner the tax dodger, Milliband the doomsday cult zealot and Rachel from accounts with her fake CV.

We really need a general election to prevent further damage to the country. Labour are an absolute shower.

Farage Puts Reform Party on ‘General Election War Footing’, Predicting End of Starmer Era

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/02/10/farage-puts-reform-party-on-general-election-war-footing-predicting-end-of-starmer-era/

I think it is time for the good folks of the UK to dump the globalist, liberal illegal migrant importer, Starmer as the leader of the UK.

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Starmer is already doing his upmost to cancel local elections.

What a surprise that an ardent fan of the technocratic undemocratic EU, who called for a second Brexit referendum would try to subvert the Democratic process. A real shocker! 😄

Been down both these avenues many times before.

Starmer is not cancelling local elections. As the article states, a Conservative administration did something similar although I don't recall you mentioning it on that occasion

Is the EU inherently undemocratic? Imo no but that does not mean that the process could not be reformed e.g. make the Commission more accountable.

https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/CIT5.-Dem.pdf

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No.

It would have been hypocritical if they called for a second General Election BEFORE Labour had formed a government.

But that didn't happen.

Nice try though Raymond 😄.

So stating that the People voted Leave in 2016 and that verdict must be respected (seemingly ad infinitum), while at the same time insisting that the People's vote for Labour in 2024 should be ignored and a GE held immediately, is not in the slightest bit hypocritical? Yes, that's consistent and logical😂

Anyway, thanks for putting my mind at rest, John. I was worried that we might actually agree on something and I would then obviously have to question my own existence.

37 minutes ago, RayC said:

So stating that the People voted Leave in 2016 and that verdict must be respected (seemingly ad infinitum), while at the same time insisting that the People's vote for Labour in 2024 should be ignored and a GE held immediately, is not in the slightest bit hypocritical? Yes, that's consistent and logical

You seem confused again Ray. Or at least, you are pretending to be. Allow me to dumb it down even more for you.

Nobody was asking for a second General Election BEFORE Labour formed a government.

But Remainers wanted a second referendum BEFORE we left the EU.

It's very simple. So simple in fact, I'm sure even you can understand the difference. 😄

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You seem confused again Ray. Or at least, you are pretending to be. Allow me to dumb it down even more for you.

Nobody was asking for a second General Election BEFORE Labour formed a government.

But Remainers wanted a second referendum BEFORE we left the EU.

It's very simple. So simple in fact, I'm sure even you can understand the difference. 😄

No, I'm not confused, Jonny although I understand why you might be. You have repeatedly shown that you are incapable of viewing things in anything other than 'black and white'.

The Labour party have a mandate to govern until 15 August 2029. Some would seemingly disregard that mandate because of the government's poor performance to date.

By the same logic, given that Brexit has proved time and time again since its implementation to be an abject failure, you will no doubt agree that those calling for us to reverse the decision and rejoin the EU are acting completely reasonably and with justification.

23 minutes ago, RayC said:

No, I'm not confused, Jonny although I understand why you might be. You have repeatedly shown that you are incapable of viewing things in anything other than 'black and white'.

The Labour party have a mandate to govern until 15 August 2029. Some would seemingly disregard that mandate because of the government's poor performance to date.

By the same logic, given that Brexit has proved time and time again since its implementation to be an abject failure, you will no doubt agree that those calling for us to reverse the decision and rejoin the EU are acting completely reasonably and with justification.

You are deflecting because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

We are talking about Remainers calling for a second referendum before the result of the first was even implemented. It was undemocratic. Now that it has been (poorly) implemented, I would not say it was undemocratic to have a vote to Rejoin the EU if a party was elected to power with said referendum a part of their election manifesto. That is totally different to re-running the vote before it is implemented just because you didn't get the result you wanted.

There is nothing undemocratic about calling for a general election before the end of a government's term. It just happened in Japan. The Tories did it under Sunak in 2024. It has happened many times and is a well established part of democratic process in the UK and elsewhere. I would not be at all surprised if Labour called an election before 2029 if they somehow become wildly popular in the time before that.

Had people called for a second general election BEFORE Labour came to power having refused a second Brexit vote before Brexit happened then that would be different. That would be hypocritical. But that is not what happened as you are very well aware.

Now, stop deflecting, stop being disingenuous - admit you understand the point and admit that I am right.

On 2/11/2026 at 1:26 PM, JonnyF said:

You are deflecting because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

We are talking about Remainers calling for a second referendum before the result of the first was even implemented. It was undemocratic. Now that it has been (poorly) implemented, I would not say it was undemocratic to have a vote to Rejoin the EU if a party was elected to power with said referendum a part of their election manifesto. That is totally different to re-running the vote before it is implemented just because you didn't get the result you wanted.

There is nothing undemocratic about calling for a general election before the end of a government's term. It just happened in Japan. The Tories did it under Sunak in 2024. It has happened many times and is a well established part of democratic process in the UK and elsewhere. I would not be at all surprised if Labour called an election before 2029 if they somehow become wildly popular in the time before that.

Had people called for a second general election BEFORE Labour came to power having refused a second Brexit vote before Brexit happened then that would be different. That would be hypocritical. But that is not what happened as you are very well aware.

Now, stop deflecting, stop being disingenuous - admit you understand the point and admit that I am right.

I am not the one deflecting.

The 'Peoples Vote' - which I was not in favour of - would have been a vote about the Brexit deal itself, not whether we left the EU. Those who called for a second referendum simply because they didn't like the outcome of the June 2016 event can hardly call themselves democrats and were possibly, also guilty of hypocrisy. I have no trouble stating that.

However, you claim that calling for the government to resign after they have taken office exonerates those who make this call from charges of hypocrisy. But does it? Many of those very same people - are you among them? - still claim that it is too early to call Brexit a failure while at the same time labelling this government a failure after less than two years in office. I'd call that hypocrisy or, being overly generous, inconsistent. Wouldn't you agree?

(Incidentally, did you sign the petition last year calling on the government to call a general election?)

16 hours ago, RayC said:

I am not the one deflecting.

Yes you are.

16 hours ago, RayC said:

The 'Peoples Vote' - which I was not in favour of - would have been a vote about the Brexit deal itself, not whether we left the EU.

A massive revision of history. It was absolutely a re-run of the vote whether to leave or not. That's what Remainers wanted.

16 hours ago, RayC said:

Those who called for a second referendum simply because they didn't like the outcome of the June 2016 event can hardly call themselves democrats and were possibly, also guilty of hypocrisy. I have no trouble stating that.

Agreed. Which was my original point. You could have saved all the effort and agreed the first time.

16 hours ago, RayC said:

However, you claim that calling for the government to resign after they have taken office exonerates those who make this call from charges of hypocrisy. But does it?

Yes, because nobody called for a second GE before they took power. There is nothing undemocratic about calling for a sitting government to resign after the scandals, treachery, sleaze, lies and damaged to the country that Labour have been guilty of. There is a long standing precedent for this and it is entirely Democratic. Nobody is calling for a coup.

16 hours ago, RayC said:

Many of those very same people - are you among them? - still claim that it is too early to call Brexit a failure while at the same time labelling this government a failure after less than two years in office. I'd call that hypocrisy or, being overly generous, inconsistent. Wouldn't you agree?

As I already said, I have no issue with a Rejoin vote if a government is elected with said vote in their manifesto. Why? Because I am not an anti-Democratic EU shill who throws their toys out of the pram when a vote goes against them.

No matter where in the world, these politicians and leaders are just shameless. Shame on you.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Yes you are.

A massive revision of history. It was absolutely a re-run of the vote whether to leave or not. That's what Remainers wanted.

Agreed. Which was my original point. You could have saved all the effort and agreed the first time.

Yes, because nobody called for a second GE before they took power. There is nothing undemocratic about calling for a sitting government to resign after the scandals, treachery, sleaze, lies and damaged to the country that Labour have been guilty of. There is a long standing precedent for this and it is entirely Democratic. Nobody is calling for a coup.

As I already said, I have no issue with a Rejoin vote if a government is elected with said vote in their manifesto. Why? Because I am not an anti-Democratic EU shill who throws their toys out of the pram when a vote goes against them.

Now that we have established that I have addressed your points, why don't you have a go at answering my questions?

Have you stated - explicitly or implicitly - since February 2020 that Brexit requires more time for the benefits to be seen?

Did you sign the petition last year - initiated 13 months after this government took office - calling for a General Election called asap?

Do you still believe a GE should be held asap?

Don't you think that anyone who argues that more time should be given to reap the benefits of Brexit is being at best inconsistent or, perhaps, hypocritical when they will not afford the government the same time to enact positive change?

Direct answers appreciated. Please avoid any deviation into discussion about 'The Peoples Vote', a second referendum or suchlike.

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

Now that we have established that I have addressed your points, why don't you have a go at answering my questions?

Addressed my points? Admitted I was right would be more accurate. Anyway, I will humour your continued deflections.

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

Have you stated - explicitly or implicitly - since February 2020 that Brexit requires more time for the benefits to be seen?

Yes, I have.

But as well as time it requires changes. Brexit was never implemented properly, it was a Remainer fudge. At the least we require withdrawal from the ECHR and further distance from Brussels. More trade deals will obviously happen as time moves forward. So yes, I'd say it still needs more time, with the caveat that time won't help if Starmer keeps trying to reverse it and move us closer to the EU again. In that case, time will be a hindrance not a help.

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

Did you sign the petition last year - initiated 13 months after this government took office - calling for a General Election called asap?

No I did not sign that petition. Why?

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

Do you still believe a GE should be held asap?

Yes, Labour have proved themselves unfit to govern. The sleaze, the lies, the treachery have proved that beyond doubt IMO. Therefore in the interests of the country I would support a snap election. Like cancer, the earlier it is treated the better.

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

Don't you think that anyone who argues that more time should be given to reap the benefits of Brexit is being at best inconsistent or, perhaps, hypocritical when they will not afford the government the same time to enact positive change?

No I do not. In the same way a doctor might say that a patient needs more time for their body to reap the full rewards of quitting smoking while at the same time arguing that they should cease drinking excessively immediately. I do not believe such a position to be hypocritical if the doctor believes quitting smoking to be positive and drinking excessively to be harmful.

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

Direct answers appreciated. Please avoid any deviation into discussion about 'The Peoples Vote', a second referendum or suchlike.

Yes I realize as a Remainer it must be pretty embarrassing to be reminded of the calls to have a second vote before the first one was implemented. Now that you have finally admitted that was wrong and anti-democratic we can move on.

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Addressed my points? Admitted I was right would be more accurate. Anyway, I will humour your continued deflections.

Having redefined 'indigenous' you are now trying to redefine deflection to meet your needs. Pretty soon there will be a GCSE in the 'JonnyF' language.

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yes, I have.

But as well as time it requires changes. Brexit was never implemented properly, it was a Remainer fudge. At the least we require withdrawal from the ECHR and further distance from Brussels. More trade deals will obviously happen as time moves forward. So yes, I'd say it still needs more time, with the caveat that time won't help if Starmer keeps trying to reverse it and move us closer to the EU again. In that case, time will be a hindrance not a help.

Oh here we go again!

Brexit requires time and change but seemingly, management of the country's other issues requires neither. That is what your excuses for the failure of Brexit and demand for a General Election now amounts to. That is inconsistent and sounds as ridiculous as it looks.

A Brexit deal agreed to by one of the leading 'Leave' campaigners (Johnson) and overseen by him and another 'Leaver' PM (Sunak) was " ... never implemented properly, it was a Remainer fudge". Which rather begs the questions, if the deal was a 'Remainer fudge' then (1) why did Johnson sign the Agreement in the first place? and (2) how could the agreed deal have been implemented better? (I'm not sure how either Johnson, Sunak or anyone else for that matter could come up with a policy that enabled the UK to simultaneously have a border and not have a border with the RoI for example but, hey, I willing to learn).

And another of the favourite pieces of misinformation raises its head yet again i.e. the implication that the EU and the ECHR are intertwined, and that leaving the ECHR would not have been possible when we were a member of the EU. Not only is that is untrue, it has no bearing on the success of Brexit.

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No I did not sign that petition. Why?

Because it would have further highlighted your lack of consistency. Looks like you dodged a bullet there at least.

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yes, Labour have proved themselves unfit to govern. The sleaze, the lies, the treachery have proved that beyond doubt IMO. Therefore in the interests of the country I would support a snap election. Like cancer, the earlier it is treated the better.

Exactly the same argument could be used regarding Brexit.

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No I do not. In the same way a doctor might say that a patient needs more time for their body to reap the full rewards of quitting smoking while at the same time arguing that they should cease drinking excessively immediately. I do not believe such a position to be hypocritical if the doctor believes quitting smoking to be positive and drinking excessively to be harmful.

Even your analogies lack consistent.

A doctor would almost certainly tell an excessive drinker to try to stop drinking immediately if they can and likewise a heavy smoker to give up smoking asap if possible.

Light drinkers and light smokers would probably be reminded that both are not good for you.

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yes I realize as a Remainer it must be pretty embarrassing to be reminded of the calls to have a second vote before the first one was implemented.

I would say that it must be embarrassing for you to be continually reminded of your inconsistencies, but you are so blinkered and monochrome in your beliefs that you probably genuinely don't believe that you are being inconsistent.

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Now that you have finally admitted that was wrong and anti-democratic we can move on.

I'll agree that we probably should just move on. As the saying goes, "None so blind as those who will not see".

On 2/11/2026 at 10:52 AM, RayC said:

😂 An excellent idea but sadly, Larry would only be a 'stop gap' appointment. Larry is 19 and - with the best will in the world - probably isn't going to around much longer.

Sadly, I must agree.

On 2/11/2026 at 4:22 AM, RayC said:

So you agree that those Brexiters who criticised Remainers who called for a 'Peoples Vote' as being undemocratic, but who now call for an immediate GE are guilty of hypocrisy.

Excellent. A rare moment of accord.

Not sure what Brits living in Thailand/Cambodia/Laos have anything to do with British elections. They don't vote., unless they are nipping "home" to illegally tope up their state pensions, or to get their cancer/syphillis treated on the cheap.

8 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Not sure what Brits living in Thailand/Cambodia/Laos have anything to do with British elections. They don't vote., unless they are nipping "home" to illegally tope up their state pensions, or to get their cancer/syphillis treated on the cheap.

Brits living abroad have the right to vote in elections - even those who declare that they have no intention of ever returning to live in the UK - if they complete a few procedures.

Imo if you are not permanently residing in a country, then you shouldn't get to influence domestic policy (and that's what local elections and general elections (mostly) are about).

I accept that there are people on secondment overseas, etc. so I would introduce a 5-year rule i.e. after 5-years out of the UK, you can no longer vote in UK elections.

5 hours ago, RayC said:

Brits living abroad have the right to vote in elections - even those who declare that they have no intention of ever returning to live in the UK - if they complete a few procedures.

Imo if you are not permanently residing in a country, then you shouldn't get to influence domestic policy (and that's what local elections and general elections (mostly) are about).

I accept that there are people on secondment overseas, etc. so I would introduce a 5-year rule i.e. after 5-years out of the UK, you can no longer vote in UK elections.

I know Briton living overseas can vote. Everyone and their dog knows that, because such a big deal was made about it in 2026. Not sure why its necessary to point that out. I didn't say they can't vote. I stated they don't vote. I stand by that statement.

The vast majority don't bother to vote. At the last General Election, less than 200,000 even applied for a vote, let alone actually voting. This is out of about 5.5 million Britons living outside the UK. That's less than 4% who can be arsed. There are, at most, 45,000 Britons living in Thailand. 1600 or less bothered to vote.

I profoundly disagree about your support to remove the Right to Vote. One might be living outside of the country of your birth, but that doesn't mean you have no material interest in the affairs of that country. The children of expatriates are entitled to citizenship, in general. Those children are entitled to live in the UK. Their parents have a legitimate interest in domestic policy, with respect to their children's prospects. Are you arguing that only people who pay taxes should have the right to vote? So the low waged and unemployed should lose the right to vote? Since 2015, property sales in the UK have been subject to CGT if owned by a non-resident. Most expatriate Britons are not UK tax residents. No taxation without representation, right?

4 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

I know Briton living overseas can vote. Everyone and their dog knows that, because such a big deal was made about it in 2026. Not sure why its necessary to point that out. I didn't say they can't vote. I stated they don't vote. I stand by that statement.

The vast majority don't bother to vote. At the last General Election, less than 200,000 even applied for a vote, let alone actually voting. This is out of about 5.5 million Britons living outside the UK. That's less than 4% who can be arsed. There are, at most, 45,000 Britons living in Thailand. 1600 or less bothered to vote.

I profoundly disagree about your support to remove the Right to Vote. One might be living outside of the country of your birth, but that doesn't mean you have no material interest in the affairs of that country. The children of expatriates are entitled to citizenship, in general. Those children are entitled to live in the UK. Their parents have a legitimate interest in domestic policy, with respect to their children's prospects. Are you arguing that only people who pay taxes should have the right to vote? So the low waged and unemployed should lose the right to vote? Since 2015, property sales in the UK have been subject to CGT if owned by a non-resident. Most expatriate Britons are not UK tax residents. No taxation without representation, right?

"Not sure what Brits living in Thailand/Cambodia/Laos have anything to do with British elections." is ambiguous which is why I pointed out that Brits abroad can vote.

I'll give thanks for small mercies that the vast majority of UK expats can't be arsed to vote and, thus are unlikely to hold the balance of power in a UK election.

Why should the fact that an individual has a material interest in the affairs of a country automatically grant them a vote? I own shares in South African and Spanish companies and pay withholding tax in those countries. I therefore have an interest in these economies thriving, however, I certainly don't think that I should have a vote in their national elections.

The children of expats living outside the UK are not directly affected by policing, security, transport, welfare, education, etc therefore why should their parents have a voice in those decisions? If and when the parents and/or (adult) children return to the UK then, of course, they should be entitled to vote. My suggestion that the vote is kept for 5 years after an individual leaves the country would give security to those who do not intend to settle abroad long-term.

No, I am not suggesting that the low waged and unemployed should not be entitled to vote and I have no idea how you can possibly draw that conclusion.

People who buy overseas assets should understand the implications of doing so. The phrase, 'No taxation without representation' is a nice mantra and might have been appropriate in 1765 when it was coined, however it is not appropriate for the 21st century.

On 2/9/2026 at 10:31 PM, JonnyF said:

If he had any pride or dignity he would go.

Unfortunately, he has the morals of an alley cat. He will need to be forced out, which will happen very soon IMO.

Trouble is, that leaves the likes of Lammy the buffoon, Rayner the tax dodger, Milliband the doomsday cult zealot and Rachel from accounts with her fake CV.

We really need a general election to prevent further damage to the country. Labour are an absolute shower.

5 days and not a peep from your shadow with one of his coy smug replies.

Classic.