The EU debate - Part II

This is a bit of a corker like your "Cliff Richard is Indian" claim. I think there's a game of pong going on in your head. You're losing.

 

Exactly.
No control over British government other than a platform to speak.

 

Building a new cross?

He was born in England to German Jews who had escaped the Holocaust. His family emigrated to America when he was 5.

But because he was born in Blighty Kustard has claimed him as one of his own

 

Farage is in the European Parliament.
Farage simply said what would be possible. Why should the government include a member of a different party? That is a ridiculous idea.

 

You seem to struggling with the term Govt

Farage is an MEP, somewhat ironic that he's still got his nose firmly in the trough over there even post the referendum.

 

Which was pretty much his argument for leaving the EU.

 

It's ridiculous to suggest that William Joyce made as big a mark on UK history as Nigel Farage.

 

It's the EU parliament he spoke in.

 

It certainly not fit with your argument but it does fit in with the argument. Now about this elected nonsense. Any chance of a reply.

 

He confuses being known, and the consequences of the actions.

 

I didn't say it should.

 

Which isn't anything to do with our Govt..

No dogs, no blacks, no Irish

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol....-No-blacks.-No-Irish-is-now-Ukip-policy.html

 

why mention such a ridiculous idea then?

 

In seventy years time Haw-haw will still be remembered as an infamous traitor. Farage will will probably only be a footnote in history books

 

Has he not resigned? Is he still drawing an MEP salary? If so that's

 

Again that isn't what was said. Haw Haw and Farage both wielded power by having a platform to speak and both had more influence over brirish history than those who whine.

 

Nope, he's still claiming his salary and expenses the hypocritical ****ehawk

 

It really doesn't fit with the argument. Haw Haw changed nothing but the length of his neck. Farage has played a significant part in one of the biggest decisions and events in European history.

I have no idea what the 'elected nonsense' question is. I guess it's the nonsense where you made some wild claim that I required someone to be legally and democratically elected to make a mark on history. I never made such a claim. I mentioned democracy to show why he was speaking, and law to show what he was saying was legal. Clearly Haw Haw was neither. I mentioned as one of a number of reasons that your analogy was, well, ****e.

 

and employing his German wife? No wonder Pete idolises him!

 

I was pointing out the similarities of their position in history