Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The Primacy of EU Law and its implications

by Frank Schnittger Mon Dec 10th, 2018 at 12:52:12 PM EST

The European Court of Justice has found, in a clear and lucid judgement, that a sovereign state which has issued a notification (under Article 50) of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, retains the sovereign right to withdraw that notification "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" until such time as it takes full effect.

Unlike the Advocate General's earlier advisory opinion, it does so solely in accordance with European Law as established by the treaties, without relying on "custom and practice" in international law, or the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which has not been ratified by the EU or France and Romania, although it notes that the VCLT "corroborates" this view.

The main arguments it uses to come to this view include the following:


  1. "The question referred must therefore be examined in the light of the [EU founding] Treaties taken as a whole" (para. 46) which create "a new legal order, possessing its own institutions, for the benefit of which the Member States thereof have limited their sovereign rights.(44)

  2. "As regards the wording of Article 50 TEU, it should be noted that that article does not explicitly address the subject of revocation. It neither expressly prohibits nor expressly authorises revocation." (48)

  3. "A Member State which decides to withdraw is to notify the European Council of its `intention'. An intention is, by its nature, neither definitive nor irrevocable. (49)

  4. "The decision to withdraw is for that Member State alone to take, in accordance with its constitutional requirements, and therefore depends solely on its sovereign choice". (50) It follows that it has also retained its sovereign right to change its mind on that intention, (57) which also reflects "its status as a Member State of the European Union, a status which is not suspended or altered by that notification" (59)

  5. "That revocation is fundamentally different in that respect from any request by which the Member State concerned might ask the European Council to extend the two-year period referred to in Article 50(3) TEU; the analogy that the Commission and the Council seek to make between that revocation and such an extension request cannot therefore be accepted." (60)

  6. "the European Union is composed of States which have freely and voluntarily committed themselves to those values [of liberty and democracy], and EU law is thus based on the fundamental premiss that each Member State shares with all the other Member States, and recognises that those Member States share with it, those same values." (63) " In those circumstances, given that a State cannot be forced to accede to the European Union against its will, neither can it be forced to withdraw from the European Union against its will." (65)

  7. "The origins of Article 50 TEU also support an interpretation of that provision as meaning that a Member State is entitled to revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to withdraw from the European Union." "Although, during the drafting of that clause, amendments had been proposed to allow the expulsion of a Member State, to avoid the risk of abuse during the withdrawal procedure or to make the withdrawal decision more difficult, those amendments were all rejected on the ground, expressly set out in the comments on the draft, that the voluntary and unilateral nature of the withdrawal decision should be ensured".(68)

  8. "That conclusion is corroborated by the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which was taken into account in the preparatory work for the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe." (70)

  9. "As regards the proposal of the Council and the Commission that the right of the Member State concerned to revoke the notification of its intention to withdraw should be subject to the unanimous approval of the European Council, that requirement would transform a unilateral sovereign right into a conditional right subject to an approval procedure. Such an approval procedure would be incompatible with the principle, referred to in paragraphs 65, 67 and 69 of the present judgment, that a Member State cannot be forced to leave the European Union against its will." (72)

When the Advocate General gave his advisory ruling I formed the view that his advice was unduly "political" and that he was "leaning over backwards" in order to provide a mechanism to enable the UK to reverse its decision to withdraw. On reading the full text of the full ruling, however, I am reassured that it has a solid basis in EU law, and does not rely on the VCLT, or on "custom and practice" in international law.

The risk and concerns expressed by the Commission and Council that allowing for such a unilateral right would open up the process to abuse must be counterbalanced by the principle that joining and leaving the EU must always be a voluntary act by a sovereign state, even if its A.50 notification has occasioned significant disruption and diversion of resources in other member states. There is always the political risk that any state which invokes and revokes its intention to leave the EU will suffer a significant loss of status, prestige and influence within the EU, but such actions do not effect its legal right to do so.

It is to be hoped that the economic disruption and political upheaval experienced by the UK in the aftermath of its A.50 invocation will act as a deterrent to any state doing so in a tactical or indeed frivolous manner. The EU institutions, in deciding on how to respond, will undoubtedly now take into account the fact that any A.50 invocation will in future be seen as reversible, and may not treat such an event with the seriousness, and the allocation of resources, that was accorded to the UK invocation.

The serious negotiations may only begin once a member has actually left, with the Exit agreement dealing only with aspects of the divorce, and providing for a transitional period to minimise disruption while the real negotiation take place with the ex-member as a third party. To some extent that is already happening, with the "Political Declaration" on the "future relationship" between the EU and UK being non-binding at this stage.

Attempts by the UK to include the negotiation of a full free trade agreement within the scope of the Brexit negotiations have been resisted, and much of the disappointment with the Brexit deal in the UK is linked to the fact that the Exit payment must be made up front before the precise nature of the future relationship is known or is fully legally binding. Indeed Boris Johnson, in his latest wheeze, has proposed that half the Exit payment should be withheld until a final trade deal has been agreed and ratified.

The EU has agreed, in an attempt to avoid a "hard border" within Ireland, that the UK can remain withing the Customs Union for a transitional period until an agreed solution to avoiding such a border has been found. But this major concession by the EU has been perceived by many in the UK as a negative, as it doesn't provide a definitive end date for that transition, or visibility as to how a hard border in Ireland will then be avoided.

As the Irish government and Northern Irish business and agricultural lobbies have been quick to realise, that is actually an ideal solution for Ireland as a whole, as it enable free north south and east west trade for the foreseeable future. If the UK doesn't like that solution, I suspect the EU would be amenable to restricting that provision to Northern Ireland only, although that creates a risk of a customs border emerging "down the Irish sea". .

It is the DUP, perversely, and obviously hard Brexiteers, who are concerned that the current transitional arrangement could become permanent imposing EU rules on the UK without providing the UK a say in their development, and restricting the UK's ability to strike its own trade deals. However Ireland is the only country with which the UK has a significant trade surplus, so this has a significant up-side for Great Britain as well.

The hard Brexiteers appear to believe that a hard "no deal" Brexit will enable them to strike more advantageous bilateral deals with EU members and the rest of the world in due course. But no deal means no deal from an EU perspective as well, and it is difficult to see why the EU would strike anything other than humanitarian deals in the event of a chaotic no deal Brexit.

Quite why third countries would strike more advantageous deals for the UK than they would with the EU is also hard to fathom. This belief in the UK seems to be grounded in a belief in a "special relationship" with the US, and in bonds of continuing mutual affection with former colonies and now commonwealth members. Members of the royal family may receive a warm welcome in those countries, as they have in Ireland, but it is doubtful that will translate into hugely more beneficial trade deals than those the EU can negotiate.

The ECJ has affirmed the UK's sovereignty in matters of EU membership  meaning that the UK can choose reissue an A.50 notification at any time should it decide to remain this time around. It is hard to see this having a game changing impact on the debate in the House of Commons or in the UK as a whole. But in a tight vote it might just swing the waverers.

Display:
The ECJ reached the simplest possible conclusion: agree entirely with Colman's opinion and ignore all those silly people talking about extracting a price or punishing the UK or whatever.

More seriously, this was always the most likely reading.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2018 at 02:12:18 PM EST
Everyone is entitled to their I told you so that you moment

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Dec 10th, 2018 at 02:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
wheeze cf. Bojo
wiːz
noun
informal*British
a clever or amusing scheme, idea, or trick.
"a new wheeze to help farmers"
synonyms: scheme, plan, idea, tactic, move, stratagem, ploy, gambit, device, manoeuvre, contrivance, expedient;

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Dec 10th, 2018 at 04:17:09 PM EST
One suspects that the EU is developing additional guidelines about how future exit proposals will be handled, and is not publicizing them yet in order to not interfere with the Brexit process.

Note that two significant changes to the original setup of American system were needed before our federal government could really have its way. First, a Civil War that clarified that a state's joining the Republic was a one-way function, and second, an amendment (the 16th, in 1913) to our Constitution that allowed a federal income tax. The EU seems to be working out the first of these issues.

by asdf on Mon Dec 10th, 2018 at 09:22:04 PM EST
All that was after the debacle of the "The United States in Congress Assembled" under the 1781 Articles of Confederation.  As soon as the elites realized their $100 government bonds were only worth $20 because people thought the government would never pay back the original face value the current constitution was quickly written and passed.  

Moral:  get the bankers and elites deeply invested in worthless EU bonds and "an ever closer Union" will come lickety-split.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Dec 10th, 2018 at 10:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's partly what the Euro is all about. No longer can Italy just devalue the Lira and thereby devalue its elite's accumulated and inherited wealth, and Germany will see to it that all debts are repaid...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Dec 10th, 2018 at 11:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
US states don't run budget deficits, though. They all have balanced budget rules (there are several variations), and they pretty much follow them.

Puerto Rico (not technically a state) is an example of what can happen if the rules are avoided. Similar to the EU PIGS.

by asdf on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 02:44:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But we haven't worked out the vital necessity of a federal income tax yet, and massive transfers from richer states towards the poorer ones.

Which is why the USA is a relatively successful federal state, and...

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

by eurogreen on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 10:51:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, you're on to something: transfer payments. How transfer payments (not 'authoritarism') curry political loyalty.

Consider, if you will litigation today between states and federal government about whether or not US gov may withhold payment from "sanctuary cities," for example of coercion. And no, this tactic was not invented 40 years ago.

Under what conditions has EU gov similarly rewarded or impoverished a member state?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 02:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The EU is proposing to withdraw structural funds from member states that don't respect the EU's values (a jab at Poland and Hungary) or the fiscal rules.

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 Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 06:10:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Poland and Hungary being among the largest net recipients of EU funds, and yet the most likely to breach the democratic norms they are supposed to uphold per the Treaties.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 06:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mississippi and Alabama are large net recipients of federal money, and have a history of breaching democratic norms.

A good thing is that by building huge military installations in those states, they become dependent on the federal government, which then has more leverage over them on the democratic norms front. A bad thing is that those states send just as many (or more, proportionally) representatives to Congress as do the richer states, which puts downwards pressure on the democratic norms.

by asdf on Wed Dec 12th, 2018 at 12:06:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Has this 'threat' come to pass? Need it?
Supreme court justices who would have been forced to retire will be allowed to stay on.
under the radar

For this threat to become a reality, however, all 27 other EU member states would have to support that next step. Poland has declared it will not support this, presumably to pre-empt the possibility of a similar action being taken against Poland.
Hungary and Poland: Rogue states threatening the EU?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 07:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
US States don't run budget deficits because they are sub-sovereign entities. The federal government runs a budget deficit for everyone. That's what's missing in the eurozone.

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 Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 11:25:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Golden Bear chits

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 02:51:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The EU is still stuck in the articles of confederation and needs a Hamiltonian bargain of fiscal federalism to become "a more perfect union".  

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 Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 11:24:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that a question?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 02:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, a claim.

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 Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 06:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have postulated elsewhere, contemporary ructions within EU member states as well as evolution and adoption of EP authorities is analogous to historical establishment of a strong central government bureaucracy and common currency among the USA, culminating in a notorious civil war here. Several european politicians have denied this analogy, "United States of Europe". Nonetheless, here you --as well as innerboob spectators in the USA -- feebly grappling competition among signatories to retain "sovereignty" while a bloodless political revolution ripens. The US gov't required some 100 years and trillions of US Treasury income tax authority and revenue, distributed as block grants ("incentives") among the sovereign states, to obviate "consensus" among states' legislators (10th Amd.). The EP is but 30-years-old.
[...]
in review, you may evaluate and anticipate controversy within EU social structures as I do from some perspective on perfect unions, not addressed from black histories of "civilization".
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 07:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I submit that is the wrong simile. The US took about 10 years, give or take two or three, to go from the Articles of Confederation to the federal Constitution.

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 Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 08:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 09:28:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
US CIVIL WAR plus Reconstruction Acts of 1867 which concluded, or restored the union, 1877.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 09:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The timeline doesn't have to be the same for the EU as for the USA. And the USA's structure should not be considered an ideal goal, obviously! But the advantages of federation over confederation are apparent in both cases.
by asdf on Wed Dec 12th, 2018 at 12:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Although the century is young, EU leadership is doing its damnedest to avoid bloody civil war: "unprecedented." Call me in 2068 by ouija board.

As for "advantages of federation over confederation", apparent agreement of the peoples, even those correspondents at eurotrib, remains to be seen.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Dec 12th, 2018 at 12:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How many decades did each of the several US states issue its own currency?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 02:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The right to issue legal tender was given to the Federal government by the Constitution.  For many decades banks issued paper currency supposedly based on their gold reserves.  People had to accept the first at face value, didn't have to accept the second at face value or at all.

A potted history


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 05:41:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Spanish milled dollar. Continue ...

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 06:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From the abolition of the Second Bank of the US by Andrew Jackson in 1837 until the National Note system came into effect during the Civil War - 1862 if I recall correctly.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 07:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
o, there was quite a bit of bother before '37. Some people like to hang history on the hillbilly's real estate schtick though, because it's too much trouble to disturb sleeping dog profiteers, when you've absolutely, positively must lecture on the inherent unity of the USA.

Private bankers and traders, holding reserves of sterling and gold, engaged in speculation with their own bank notes and domestic and foreign securities. 1837 wasn't the first panic or depression in the preceding decades. 1830 sticks out in my mind, because only one US bank resisted the urge to enter the UK railroad bubble --I think, it was Somerville? for a while lauded by historians (of the real bill persuasion) in its prudence.

US treasury (on coinage) and tax acts in the '50s are little recalled today.

The point of reviewing any of it y comparison to EU not-federalist proclivities is, US Americans endured a lot of FAILURE before hitching their wagons to centralized government.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 09:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The state banks kept issuing notes after that, so a federal tax was imposed on state notes that effectively drove them out over the next 20 years or so.
by rifek on Mon Dec 24th, 2018 at 07:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just such folly precipitated the Panic of 1830 and subsequently significant conformity of states' bankers with US Treasury regulations.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 03:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
hmm, yes, well
I for one look forward to the day when producers at VOA/NPR exhume certified historians to "re-imagine" and interpret Chas. Beard's colossal investigation (344 pp) of the Founding Fathers' arbitrage wealth building schemes -- and the Hamilton! hand in it.
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States*

---
* © 1918. O, look. Link to the text in the original comment has gone missing! One year on, now, you are encouraged to buy ahrum privatized edition from AMZN or peruse the wikiwtf digest... catch a road show production Hamilton!. Aren't you relieved that you saved your pdf to local disk?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 04:07:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The assumption that the federal government did not collect personal income tax before 1913 is a common fallacy. It did so directly from time to time and by stamp taxes. Think about perusing historical documents from the IRS and CRS sometime.

Rather than the occasional Federalist paper.

Also, there is no provision in the US Constitution that addresses secession of a state, orderly or not: one of the reasons, if ever, modern confederate 'intellectuals' refer to the 10th Amendment (civil right) rather than Article 10 to justify rebellion.

The apple does not fall far from the tree.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 03:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Frank mentions:

The EU has agreed, in an attempt to avoid a "hard border" within Ireland, that the UK can remain withing the Customs Union for a transitional period until an agreed solution to avoiding such a border has been found.

My emphasis. The backstop retains that relationship indefinitely which can be said to result in BRINO or BINO (Brexit in Name Only). Both parties have stated a desire to avoid a "hard border" in Ireland, a nice form of words with litte useful meaning.

I have two questions, as someone of no political experience,

  1. Does anyone have any idea what that arrangement with the UK as a third country looks like that would not require "a border" unless UK has full CU and SM membership?

  2. In the event of "No Deal", how does the EU avoid Customs and other checks on the Irish Border on March 30th?

The Withdrawal Agreement (if accepted as is) kicks that "can" down the road and into BINO.
by oldremainmer48 on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 08:01:10 AM EST
  1. is science fiction, until somebody comes up with a brainy idea for a technological solution
  2. BRINO or the briny, I would say.

A customs border in the Irish Sea is a fine solution, if the UK decides to exit the customs union; the only political obstacle is the handful of DUP votes which gives May her increasingly theoretical Commons majority. It would be immensely beneficial to Northern Ireland, which would be part of both the EU trade zone and whatever sort of trade zone the UK would cobble together; and would probably pick up loads of jobs from companies relocating from Great Britain.

All of this would help to mop up the huge difference of standards of living between the North and South, easing the path to future full union...

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

by eurogreen on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 02:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You may be asking the wrong questions.

The UK acknowledges any territorial border that keeps people out of the UK. UK gov does not recognize any territorial border that prevents, impedes, or impairs the free flow UK goods, services, and money out of the UK. Accordingly, UK gov opposes any customs duty --by the parcel or bloc dues-- demanded by trading 'partners.'

The more apt question may be, How much money --a lunp sum-- can EU negotiators demand from UK gov in order to restore the Four Pillars of 'free trade'?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 03:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have some thoughts on this, which I have aired here from time to time, but which I have not seen discussed much by more authoritative sources elsewhere. If I get time I may do a diary on it, because it's not something that can be addressed adequately in a short comment.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Dec 11th, 2018 at 03:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Seems to me the whole need for a backstop is made more evident by the observation that in two years, nobody has been able to come up with a plan to combine Brexit with no Irish border. There's no evidence yet that another year, or two, or three, would change the situation.

If there WERE such a plan, then someone should publish it. Maybe the DUP has it in their back pockets, or BoJo will show it when he is PM.

by asdf on Wed Dec 12th, 2018 at 12:13:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
UK has two options: a people's vote or Liechtenstein Plus
Liechtenstein comes into it because Plan B involves the UK leaving the EU but joining (in fact rejoining) the European Free Trade Association and, through EFTA, the European Economic Area (EEA). The EEA is a kind of adjunct to the EU single market - its members are in the single market but not part of the EU's political structures. And the EEA has three members: Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. They are equal partners - Liechtenstein has the same weight in these arrangements as Norway does. It has a veto over what happens in the EEA.

So first of all, Britain would have to get Liechtenstein's permission to join the EEA. And second, even if it did get into the EEA, it would need Liechtenstein's approval every time it wanted to do something important like having a new EU regulation transposed into EEA market rules. This is of particular interest to us because if we are to maintain an open Border, this procedure would have to be done on a regular basis to insure that market regulations in the North maintained their alignment with the South. A Liechtenstein veto could cause us big problems.

Now, let us push this just a little bit further. My vast knowledge of the Liechtenstein constitution tells me that it grants a veto over all laws to His Serene Highness Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, Duke of Troppau and Jägerndorf, Count of Rietberg, sovereign of the House of Liechtenstein and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece. So here we are: having found it utterly intolerable to be "interfered with" by the EU and its Court of Justice, the British are wishing themselves into a situation in which their laws and regulations would be subject to the agreement of the hereditary owner of an Alp. Brexit finally becomes what JG Ballard, in refusing a CBE, called "a Ruritanian charade".

The truth, which will surely begin to dawn in the next few days, is that there is no way forward with the present deal, no chance of renegotiating it substantially

But the real humiliation here is not that this is likely to happen. It is that it won't happen because even Liechtenstein won't agree to it. Nobody - not Norway, not Iceland, not His Serene Highness Hans-Adam II - wants to be stuck with the Brexit mess. It has reached the point where in order to stay alive it has to swallow more and more absurdities. And it has led to the very thing it was supposed to overcome. It was fuelled by imaginary humiliation and it is creating the real thing. It was bad enough in the 1960s when Britain's desire to join Europe was rebuffed by General De Gaulle. Now it is getting the bird from Norway, Iceland - and Liechtenstein.



Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 12th, 2018 at 02:00:59 AM EST


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

Top Diaries