Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Could the EU be about to sacrifice Ireland?

by Migeru Thu May 4th, 2017 at 12:25:49 PM EST

After the Juncker leak of his dinner with May, I think it is the Republic of Ireland that should be filled with a sense of foreboding.

The odds of no deal being reached just shot up considerably.

The EU had earlier made it known that its negotiating priorities were "People, Money, and Ireland". Note that money comes before Ireland. And the insistence on the UK paying an "exit bill" and just this week apparently raising it, stands in the way of a deal on Ireland.


The Irish government considers the Juncker leak "unhelpful":

Leaked details of an allegedly disastrous dinner between Juncker and British Prime Minister Theresa May in London are “not helpful,” Irish government chief whip Regina Doherty said on Tuesday. The comments set the “wrong tone” as Ireland wants a “vibrant” trade relationship with the U.K. after Brexit in 2019, she said in an RTE radio interview.

(Bloomberg)

If Brexit happens without a deal, Ireland faces a logistical nightmare as most of its supplies come overland through the UK. It also faces problems over the customs border with Northern Ireland. Even with a deal, this will be a problem as May's stated goal is to have the UK outside the customs union.

On the other hand, the political problem Ireland faces over Northern Ireland appears to have been diminished or at least postponed. it appears that May will drop her insistence on taking the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights, which removes a key threat to the Good Friday Agreement which is underpinned by the ECHR.

Mrs May, who served as home secretary from 2010 to 2016, said last year she wanted to quit the ECHR, which for a time frustrated her plans to extradite the hate preacher Abu Qatada.

She was expected to write the commitment into the Conservative manifesto meaning that Britain would be committed to withdrawing by the end of the next parliament, in 2022.

However, senior Government figures have told The Telegraph they expect Mrs May to drop the commitment because it would be a major distraction for her Government from the Brexit negotiations.

(Telegraph)

The other threat is that the GFA gave natives of Northern Ireland the right to British Citizenship, Irish Citizenship, or both. This involves the European Court of Justice in Northern Irish law, and May will continue to insist on leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Now, it is all very well for the EU to say Ireland is one of its negotiating priorities, but if the negotiations fail Ireland will need a lot of support from the EU which cannot be improvised. I wonder if anyone in the EU is making contingency plans, or they are just gambling with Ireland and possibly sacrificing it to spite the UK.

Display:
This started life as a comment to Frank Schnittger's United EU Negotiating mandate and a United Ireland within EU (April 29th, 2017)
The degree of unanimity being displayed by the EU 27 has been quite remarkable, and must fill UK negotiators with foreboding.


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2017 at 12:28:28 PM EST
It has long been my view that Ireland will be sacrificed in the Brexit negotiations if need be. See, for example: A Brexit doomsday scenario
Countries such as Ireland, with the most to lose from Brexit, will be marginalised in the larger political dynamics at play. The best Ireland can hope for is a deal ensuring that any customs controls will be implemented at air and sea ports in N. Ireland and not at the 500 Km land border with the Republic which even 10,000 British troops couldn't seal off at the height of the troubles.

And I also agree with the Irish Government that the Juncker leak was unhelpful - in fact it is probably the first major miss-step on the EU side of the negotiation. Confidential meetings should remain confidential, otherwise all trust is destroyed, and no negotiations can succeed without at least some degree of mutual trust and goodwill. Theresa May has now also been gifted a major talking point for her election campaign - about nefarious EU bureaucrats trying to undermine her campaign and "influence the UK general election result".

This could evoke a nationalist response from the UK electorate and help her re-election prospects. It was unnecessary for Juncker to leak his concerns regarding a yawning gap between UK and EU expectations ahead of the negotiations in the middle of an election campaign in the UK. There will be time enough for that gap to become clear during the course of the negotiations.

Your other main point, that Northern Ireland citizens have a right to either or both British and Irish citizenship is also apt: As I argued in Open Letter to Attorney General and Minister for Foreign Affairs

In return, the [Good Friday] Agreement guarantees parity of esteem to both the Irish and British traditions in N. Ireland and allows its people to give full expression to those identities by becoming British or Irish citizens, or both, as they see fit.

What the British supreme Court appears to have over-looked is that it is now an integral part of Irish citizenship and identity that we are Citizens of the European Union as well, deriving many rights and benefits from that citizenship as enshrined, inter alia, in the European Charier of Fundamental Rights.

It is important to note that the people of Northern Ireland who choose an Irish identity enjoy those rights as citizens giving expression to their identity within N. Ireland and the UK as it is presently constituted, and not simply as aspirants to a future United Ireland or as citizens of a foreign state resident in N. Ireland.

In so peremptorily dismissing the right of the people of N. Ireland to be consulted on such a fundamental change to their Irish citizenship, tradition and identity within N. Ireland, the UK Supreme Court is in breach of their rights, and of the rights of the N. Ireland Assembly as set up under the Good Friday agreement.

However what legal advice I have received in the wake of that diary appears to indicate that the Good Friday Agreement is justiciable by the ICJ rather than the ECJ, as the GFA is lodged with the UN as an international treaty between the UK and Ireland. The UK leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ may not therefore present the difficulty you suggest in relation to Northern Ireland.

It does however represent a difficult for residents of Northern Ireland exercising their right (under the GFA) to Irish Citizenship, as the EU is an essential part of that identity and the rights pertaining to it. I was therefore disappointed by the lack of a response by the Irish Government to my Open Letter to Attorney General and Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu May 4th, 2017 at 02:37:15 PM EST
And I also agree with the Irish Government that the Juncker leak was unhelpful - in fact it is probably the first major miss-step on the EU side of the negotiation.

It possible that this was some sort of powerplay, and if that is the case then I agree with this assessment.

Unfortunately, I suspect that this may have been an act of desperation on the part of the EU side in an effort to get the get their British counterparts to finally WTFU. Let's assume the leaked account is fairly accurate (and that is depressingly plausible):

  • Junker et al turn up for a full and frank private discussion. Normally this will allow both sides to be more open and to discard, or at least soften, public posturing.
  • They find that what the British are saying in private is at least as divorced from reality as what they are saying in public, and perhaps even more so.
  • Basically now the EU is effectively in panic mode. They have a counter-party that is in no way prepared for the upcoming negotiations. That is immediately a recipe for disaster. Despite repeated, consistent messages over multiple channels for many months none of them appear to have sunk in.
  • At this point they are incontrovertibly facing the very high probability of a failed negotiation. Hence they take an extreme measure that people with such experience would normally never contemplate. They make a comprehensive and damning leak in a desperate attempt to break through the fog of delusion that is surrounding May et al. Yes, this has great potential to backfire, but it is the equivalent of jumping out of a burning building - the fall might kill you, but the fire definitely will.

If the above scenario is correct then this statement:
The odds of no deal being reached just shot up considerably.

is incorrect.

The true odds have not been shifted considerably. What has happened is that they have become much more readily apparent. In this case the leak is a good thing because, even if it does not prompt the British to get their act together, it will hopefully prompt others to pay more attention to their contingency planning. If you are dealing with an irrational counter-part, then the sooner you are fully aware of that, the better.

by det on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 12:46:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the EU 27 are horrified by the insanity and incompetence of the UK side. I also don't see any scenario in which this is an attempt to influence an election - how would that work? There's bugger all chance of anything except a Tory majority and their best (but still really bad) bet is for a big enough one that May can push through hard compromises, assuming she wants to.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 08:39:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suppose the Eurocrats must have assumed, as a sane person would, that the xenophobic tabloid posturing was meant for domestic consumption, and so, of course, they would be far too polite to take it seriously -- nothing would ever get done in Brussels if each country's domestic politics were taken seriously. At a European level, things can (often) be negotiated in a rational manner. This is helped by the fact that the national presses of EU members don't cover Europe in detail, so each nation's hysterias and psychoses can be left aside.

So they were expecting to be able to do a bit of back-channel, probing for the UK's actual positions and goals. And were appalled at the vacuum they found.

May's crowd are, one imagines, so absorbed in pulling off the political holdup of the century that they don't really care about serious negotiations at this point. They are scary people.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 10:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is far too early for the EU to panic about anything. Panic is a sign of weakness, not strength.

May is hardly likely to show her hand or her real end position in the middle of an election campaign and it is normal to posit outrageous opening positions in the hope of shifting the Overton window.  This stage of the negotiating process is about setting expectations, nothing more.

If these negotiations are going to succeed, they are not going to be conducted through megaphone diplomacy through the media, but through private understandings and trust established in private discussions.  Leaks don't help this process.

Sure, if the negotiations still look like being an epic fail coming up to the 2 year deadline the time will come for exercises in public damage limitation and blame setting to kick in.  The fall-out then will be considerable and the EU will have to try and win a PR battle at that stage.

But we are a very long way from that stage in the process and leaking private conversations doesn't help getting the process underway.  It is May's job to set the expectations on her side, and if she does a bad job of it is she who will become a cropper. The EU can't take ownership of the consequences of her side doing a bad job representing their own interests.  The UK must be allowed to own its own failure.


Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 09:18:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They have 15 months. They don't have time to patiently educate May on the realities of the situation if she's still delusional a year in. No deal is bad for everyone.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 09:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Economically that may be true, especially for the UK and Ireland, but politically it may be the least worst option for the rest of the EU. I can see the contingency planning stepping up into top gear already...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 11:25:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Politically it'll be a mess too: worst cases you're getting forced deportations of EU citizens from UK, and what do we do with UK citizens in EU?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 11:32:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK would lose all remaining goodwill, much economic activity, and all prospects of a trade deal if it went down that route. The EU also has no interest in going down that route.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 12:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it would be catastrophically stupid. This isn't reassuring in the slightest.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 03:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a difference between the majority of EU immigrants to the UK and UK immigrants to the EU which is often overlooked.  Most UK immigrants to the EU are pensioners subsisting on pensions whose value is declining as Sterling devalues. Most are still tax resident in the UK so pay little in tax to the countries whose infrastructure they enjoy. They help consumption but otherwise don't add much value to EU economies. They are also huge consumers of expensive public healthcare.

Most EU immigrants to the UK, on the other hand, are younger, working age immigrants who help build the UK economy, pay taxes to the UK exchequer, add value to UK consumption, and tend not to use healthcare or other public services as much.  Their departure would hugely impact on the capacity of the UK economy, and conversely, help develop the economies of the countries to which they move. These are not the sort of people you want to send home if your target is economic growth and tax buoyancy.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 04:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you cared about those things you wouldn't be running full tilt at the hard Brexit wall either.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 05:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Frank:  
Most UK immigrants to the EU are pensioners subsisting on pensions whose value is declining as Sterling devalues. Most are still tax resident in the UK so pay little in tax to the countries whose infrastructure they enjoy.

Do we have figures on that?

The Britons I know in France are working there, and paying taxes, obviously.

Also, there's the 183 days rule: if you stay at least that many days in most countries, you become a tax resident in that country, even if your income comes from your home country. To keep paying income taxes in Britain, a British pensioner would have to shuttle back to Blighty for the better part of the year.

by Bernard on Sat May 6th, 2017 at 08:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've seen figures of c. 700K British residents in Spain of whom only 300K have legal residency, but cannot verify their accuracy.  Anecdotally I do know of lots of Brits in my part of Spain who have been living here semi-permanently for many years with no thought of regularising their position. The 183 day rule isn't policed or enforced AFAIK, but I am in the process of considering a change in my status because I am on the borderline.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun May 7th, 2017 at 11:30:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is once any issue of any interest comes up, believe me: the Irish authorities won't bother you so long as you send them all your taxes, but I've seen it bite people on several  occasions.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun May 7th, 2017 at 12:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Enforcement by Spanish or Irish authorities?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun May 7th, 2017 at 10:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Irish: I've seen some very careful recounting of days and detailed research on how, exactly, to count holidays and business trips to third party states.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon May 8th, 2017 at 09:02:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well then they shouldn't have any complaints if I decide I am more likely to spend 183+ days outside Ireland.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon May 8th, 2017 at 10:36:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They'll want to be very sure that you are.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon May 8th, 2017 at 03:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is there any EU norm for this business, or is it all bilateral?

For non-EU countries, it certainly is all bilateral. I have a friend from NZ who now has to spend half the year there, far from his wife, in order to be able to claim his pension. They could, however, live all year round in, for example, Greece or Ireland. And are thinking about it.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue May 9th, 2017 at 06:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A lot of them can simply be deported. According to this discussion on Naked Capitalism, a lot of UK retirees in Spain have never established residency, as it's cheaper to exploit the health system this way. Unless they are smart enough to realise the problem and do something about this within the next 2  years, they will be simply tourists, and their time in Spain can be limited. There are unlikely to be many EU citizens in the UK with this problem.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 03:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can see the contingency planning stepping up into top gear already...
Please, tell us more...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 05:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
More years ago than I care to remember, I used to work as a corporate strategist in a Global multi-national (before I got waylaid into IT!). We would have been collectively shot if we didn't have contingency plans for all likely scenarios for a Brexit outcome, and right now a hard Brexit looks the most likely.

At an EU level this would involve a sector by sector analysis of winners and losers from a hard Brexit and a move to something like WTO tariffs.  EU winners could include the banking and financial services industries, investment and legal services, building companies, customs and excise administrations, and companies in high WTO tariff sectors competing with UK companies for market share within the EU. German car companies had better be looking to develop markets other than the UK. Merkel has already told them that the "national interest" trumps their interests.

Hardest hit would be agricultural and food exporters to the UK (where WTO tariffs are the highest) and companies with significant parts of their production or supply chains traversing the UK boarder - e.g. Guinness and Bailey's in Ireland whose product/supply chains cross the border multiple times.  Many of these are Just-in-time production processes or involve fresh produce which could be devastated by customs delays or quality checks to ensure they meet EU standards.

If I were in Diageo now I would be advising the re-location of Guinness Bottling from Belfast and perhaps the resumption of Guinness Brewing (by contract brewers) within the UK, (Currently the UK market is entirely supplied with bulk beer from Dublin).

The Irish food industry has already been hard hit by sterling devaluation and has been busily diversifying away from the UK. Fortunately a lot of consolidation and amalgamation of smaller co-ops and businesses has already taken place which gives companies like Kerry, Greencore, Aryzta, and Glanbia the scale they need to compete in markets like China. However smaller companies dependent on the UK market could go to the wall.

These companies tend to be labour intensive and situated in rural areas where other employment opportunities are scarce - and so the effects of any closures could be socially and politically disproportionate even where the GDP impact is small.

In general, complex intra and inter company supply chains tend to favour the largest market, as economies of scale are (almost) everything.  So I would expect the EU to gain far more than the UK from the rationalisation of supply chains to avoid customs borders.

One of the difficulties for such scenario planning is that while the UK would technically be a WTO member, it will not have had the time or opportunity to negotiate schedules of tariff rates and quotas with other WTO members, and perhaps also not with the EU if the divorce isn't amicable. So we don't actually know with certainty what tariffs might be applied in the future in the absence of such agreements.

Thus if no agreement is reached on an exit bill, for example, the EU might seek to make up it's budget shortfall by applying tariffs to some or all UK imports. If the UK retaliated a trade war could result and that would benefit no one, but especially not the UK (or Ireland). Sterling devaluation has effectively already put up a tariff wall on Exports to the UK, and if (say) a further 20% devaluation took place in the wake of a hard Brexit, virtually all Irish food exports to the UK would become uneconomic, for example.

And all of this is before we even consider the possible impact of non tariff barriers if EU and UK regulators stop recognising each others standards and quality assurance processes.  (Such mutual recognition agreements are a normal part of trade agreements, but could be jeopardised if the UK followed light touch regulation or a race to the bottom approach to labour, environmental, consumer protection, and quality assurance standards, particularly in controversial areas such as GMOs, hormone/anti-biotic fed meats, and dodgy financial products).

In short, if the UK wants to be free of EU regulation and "red tape" and something like ECJ supervision, it probably can't have a free trade deal with the EU.  And it is by no means certain that it can simply opt for a Canadian, Norwegian or Swiss style trade or association association agreement.  Firstly, those agreements don't cover services, and secondly the EU is under no obligation to give those terms to another applicant.

The great weakness of the UK economy is that it is so reliant on services when those are often the easiest to re-locate, the most difficult to regulate, and generally not included in trade agreements in any case.  They may not realise it now, but the UK may well have been the single greatest net beneficiary (along with Germany) of the EU, and the greatest loser now that they are leaving.  Who remembers the anaemic UK growth of the 1960's, the "English Disease", the poor quality of UK manufactured goods, the industrial strife and the class war?  Welcome to life outside the EU.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri May 5th, 2017 at 07:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't doubt large corporates and trade associations will already be doing contingency planning, but I can't say the same for the EU itself.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat May 6th, 2017 at 05:41:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Barnier's team would not be doing their jobs if they weren't already weighing up the relative economic impacts of whatever trade deal they are thinking of offering the UK.  Having superior insight into what does and does not favour your economies when considering the trade-offs in any trade deal is vital to securing the balance of advantage in any negotiation.  

Thus you give way on items that cost you relatively little, and stand firm where you can potentially gain the most. I'd say there is some pretty complex spreadsheeting going on looking at relative trade volumes in each sector, likely WTO tariffs rates, the costs of customs and inspection regimes, and what economies/industries are likely to benefit/suffer.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are planning to target specific strategic industries where the UK is strong: obviously Euro clearing, banking, financial services, Airbus wing and engine manufacture, Renault/Nissan owned car plants, armaments, key consumer brands etc. and make sure it is in the interest of those companies to relocate to the EU if they want to retain customs free EU business.

The UK has lost much of its industrial base since the Thatcher years.  The last world leading British IT company was sold off recently, and much infrastructure - water, railways, power generation etc. - is already foreign owned.  New Zealand was devastated when the UK joined the EU in 1973 as its major market was suddenly cut off. The UK might find itself in a similar situation when it loses tariff free access to the EU.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat May 6th, 2017 at 02:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm concerned about the logistics of supplying Ireland if the UK falls out if the Customs Union without a deal. Sorpeadsheeting on trade figures doesn't capture the cost to Ireland which is, what? 2% of Eurozone GDP?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 7th, 2017 at 08:13:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Republic does have direct shipping routes to France etc. which could be expanded quite rapidly if required. In theory "Certificates of Origin" paperwork should expedite any transit through Great Britain, especially if there were separate lanes for through traffic and electronic/barcoded documents facilitating rapid processing at customs control points. Trust the Brits to screw all that up though.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun May 7th, 2017 at 11:24:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Food safety is a major concern in China.  Big demand waiting for supply.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Mon May 8th, 2017 at 02:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Panic" was poor cord choice on my part. Colman's "horrified" is closer to the intended mark.

The point is you don't need to have private meetings if the message communicated is the same as that given in public. As noted in other comments, normal operating procedure would be to accept that public posturing for domestic consumption. If that posturing is actually the true position, then I am not sure that normal negotiating rules apply anymore.

In any case, the EU is not going to win any PR battles in the UK. They will be blamed whatever the outcome.

by det on Sat May 6th, 2017 at 08:15:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The EU doesn't have to win any PR battles in the UK any more - where it has always been a big loser in any case. But it does have to satisfy its own citizens that is has acted reasonably and competently in its negotiations with the UK and that any failure in the negotiations is the result of intransigence by the UK.  So far it isn't doing too badly in that regard, but the real test will come when the negotiations do actually fail.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun May 7th, 2017 at 11:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Brexit could cost Ireland 40,000 jobs, says Central Bank
Under a hard Brexit scenario, Ireland could lose 40,000 jobs after 10 years, according to the chief economist of the Central Bank.

"Our estimates suggest that after 10 years, GDP would be lower by 3 per cent," said Gabriel Fagan. According to the bank, that estimate is in line with those of the Economic and Social Research Institute and the Department of Finance.

Speaking at the Seanad special select committee on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, Mr Fagan said that the bank's analysis is that the overall economic effects for Ireland in both the short term and longer term will be negative.

"The effects will be much worse if no free trade agreement can be reached. Some small to medium enterprises are likely to be among the hardest hit by Brexit," Mr Fagan added.

What he didn't say - or wasn't reported as saying - is that the effects of Brexit will be very asymmetric in their impact on the Irish Economy. Largely Dublin based financial and legal firms could do very well, while smaller and rural based agricultural, food manufacturing enterprises dependent on the UK market could go to the wall.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu May 4th, 2017 at 04:16:52 PM EST
So no problem then. Everyone that matters will be just fine.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2017 at 08:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

LQD: Totes awky momo

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 12
30 comments

Catalonia open thread

by fjallstrom - Sep 29
41 comments

Smudges

by Oui - Sep 23
10 comments