EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2

This is an answer to comments by Swan Lake and EU itself a disaster:

The HUGE difference between EU and USA in response to Haiti. and EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

The New EU foreign minister and the new European President are both undemocratic appointments to undemocratic posts created by an undemocratic treaty.

A short but very succinct description of the Lisbon Treaty and what it really means for the common people.

That these people are so lackluster and bland apparatichs is not a coincidence according to this article. And there are merits to their arguments.

Another factor is the usual squabble among the top EU nations to get THEIR candidates to the most important posts. And here nations like Sweden CAN ONLY WATCH AND HAVE TO ACCEPT WHATEVER ARE THE OUTCOME.

One small step for union, one giant leap for uniformity

“In fact, the anointing of Mr van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton is completely in accord with the new arrangements that brought about their promotion. The Lisbon Treaty – née the European Constitution – is not about politics. Its chief purpose is to do with management and it has thus created additional layers in an attempt to impose “consensus” more firmly on the still distressingly nationalistic member states.

In that respect, the new executive directors seem ideal. Both have risen without trace through the pathways of management – we are tempted to recall the Peter Principle relating to advancement and competence. Both have reputations that resonate only among their own managerial classes and both lard their public utterances with the buzzwords of managementspeak. Post-Lisbon Europe could hardly be better served.

While commercial management can sometimes be imaginative and innovative and benefit from big personalities, those are not qualities required in bureaucracies. Their survival depends upon a certain drab uniformity (see “consensus” above) enforced by Kafkaesque regulation unintelligible to those outside the circle. Consequently, Mr van Rompuy will direct an army of civil servants whose job will be to bamboozle the leaders of the member states into what can be presented to their voters as the desirable “European” approach.

Baroness Ashton will command a budget of £3.6 billion a year and 3,000 new  bureaucrats spanning the globe to mould the foreign relations of what used to be 27 sovereign governments into a similar “European” position.”

For such responsibilities, a distinct lack of charisma is beneficial. Already there have been mutterings among governments that their foreign affairs ministries are being downgraded and concern at a suggestion that their ministers should become EU envoys instead. How long before similar diminution overtakes national justice departments, social security ministries and treasuries? In order to complete this process, Brussels has calculated that for the moment it needs an invisible managerial hand, rather than a political Colossus, so as to confuse potential opposition.

These are early days, however. The European project is a long-term venture and far from being popular (which is why the successor to the rejected Constitution was not generally submitted to electorates and written in such a way as to avoid unpredictable votes in the future). That being so, the appointments of two unknowns were designed not to frighten the horses – hence Mr Farage’s difficulty in responding. The promoters of the single European state know that their vision can only be realised through attrition, not by revolution. Our new managers have the task of achieving a bland, ideology-free European uniformity. Once that is in place, their successors will be free to go all out for full European Union.”

The political elite in Europe DELIBERATELY constructed the Lisbon Treaty so that the common people COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT and comprehend what was going on.

I.E. THE  LARGEST TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY AND POWER FROM the people and local governments to the EU central level.

And the people were NOT allowed to have their say and to vote on it.  With one exception, Ireland.  Its constitution made it impossible for the politicians not to have a referendum.

The result – the people of Ireland voted NO 54 to 46 %.

But of course – The political elite in Europe doesn’t accept a NO from the people.

As already have happened before in France (2005 – 55% NO) Netherland (2005- 62% NO), Ireland (2001- 54% NO) and Denmark (1992 – 51% NO)  

They started their manoeuvring, twisting, some minor concessions here some more money and transfers there etc.

At ALL COST they had to have a Yes on this one. And they got one a year later.

How many times does the voters have to vote NO before NO is really a NO? Or what part of NO! don’t you understand?


And a very INTERESTING Account of how former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in a meeting with Gorbachev in January 1989, told Gorbachev that Europe in 15 years time is going to be a FEDERAL STATE.

How in the HELL DID HE KNOW THAT??????

Well the answer is very simple – because that’s been the plan all along from the political elite in Europe.

And surprise, surprise, he become the author of the European constitution (2002-03).

Wouldn’t you say that that was another “lucky” coincidence?

Here is the account from Vladimir Bukovksy describing an amazing meeting between President Gorbachev and representatives of the Trilateral Commission, which included David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.

”In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank,” said .Bukovksy

”In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared,” added the whistleblower.

 ”This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?” said Bukovksy.

“Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?

Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.”

Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

“It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

And some citations from the leading figures behind the Lisbon Treaty:

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens 

Jean Claude Juncker – Prime Minister of Luxembourg

”Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?

There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU’s powers,”

– Daily Telegraph 3 July 2007

Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister

“The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable…The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”

Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007.

Jean-Luc Dehaene,  former Belgian prime minister, and former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution

The Economist of 9 August 2007 quoted some revealing remarks by Jean-Luc Dehaene. The Economist said that in an interview in Le Soir, he said it was “dangerous talk” to want “too much transparency and clarity” in the EU. On 17 October 2007 European Voice quoted him as saying, “The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”

Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and the other former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution.

He said, at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform, recorded by Open Europe, on 12 July 2007 that EU leaders “decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception… . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]... any Prime Minister – imagine the UK Prime Minister – can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new..”

The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.” – 21 February 2007.

Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, former president of France and president of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution

Writing in Le Monde on 14 June 2007, a few days before the form of the “reform” proposals had been settled: ”A last good idea consists of wanting to preserve part of the Constitution and camouflaging this by distributing it among several texts. The more innovative provisions [of the Constitution] would be simple amendments to the Nice and Maastricht treaties. The technical improvements would be gathered together in a bland and uncontroversial treaty. These texts would be put to Parliaments to vote on them one at a time. Thus public opinion would be led to accept, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly….All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”

On 26 October 2007, writing again in Le Monde he said, “The Lisbon Treaty itself cannot be understood by ordinary citizens since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. . . The institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties. – What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”

Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Prime Minister

”The most striking change (between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.” – Irish Times, 30 June 2007.

Angela Merkel, current Chancellor of Germany and president of the EU from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2007

We have renounced everything that makes people think of a state.” Gone are the words, constitution, flag, anthem and motto.

Speaking to the European Parliament, on 27 June, Angela Merkel was keen to point out, “The agreement reached in Brussels [23 June 2007] enables us to retain the substance of the Constitutional Treaty. ”  “At the same time, the Reform Treaty contains major advances for the European Union’s capacity to act. Indeed, in some areas we even went further than in the Constitutional Treaty.”

“European integration has to be striven for and consolidated time and again.”

And all this striving for Grandeur and Pomp by the leaders of EU, they Demand Obedience and Attention as if they think they where ancient emperors. Not, as they are supposed to be, servants of the people of Europe

All paid by the taxes from the common people.


Thursday February 4,2010 , By Martyn Brown

THE new European President Herman Van Rompuy was slammed yesterday for “acting like a king” after trying to host his first EU summit in a palace.

Mr Van Rompuy originally wanted to hold the gathering in the 18th Century Palais d’Egmont in Brussels.

But after pressure from Europe’s capitals, he switched the Brussels meeting to another prestigious, but less regal, building hundreds of yards away from the usual office block venue where EU leaders meet.

Diplomats are still predicting “chaos” when EU leaders get together next week in the Bibliotheque Solvay, a cramped 100-year-old library that does not even include interpreter booths.

Far from being a king, Mr Van Rompuy, 62, has been dismissed by his sister Christine, a member of a rival political party, as a clown.

She helped produce a mocking poster last year of her brother sporting a red nose and clown’s hat in an election. Next week’s talks will focus on proposals from Mr Van Rompuy to give the EU more “economic governance” powers in the aftermath of the recession and after implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force last month.

A diplomat said the palace plan “had to be stopped,” adding: “Who does he think he is, some kind of king?”

Mr Van Rompuy’s spokesman said that the idea was to move to a venue reminiscent of the Union’s original informal “fireside” meetings of leaders. He said: “The President wants to create a more intimate atmosphere for dialogue.”

Diplomats are concerned Mr Van Rompuy might be trying to push EU leaders into agreeing economic proposals without support from national delegations – housed in a different building without communication links.

He has already insisted he alone will draw up a paper proposing economic targets and policy for the year 2020 to be set at the EU level.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Etiketter: , , , , , , , ,

8 svar to “EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2”

  1. Swanlake Says:

    Sophia Albertina

    You do a wonderful educational job. Thanks.

    Your following information is as you say most remarkable:

    ”And a very INTERESTING Account of how former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in a meeting with Gorbachev in January 1989, told Gorbachev that Europe in 15 years time is going to be a FEDERAL STATE.”

    and how could he know that?

    It’s very easy. His closes political friends were taking part in the Bilderberg Group where the future of Europe and the rest of the world was/ is discussed and eventually ”decided” upon. EU being the first successful ”project”. A group of people playing superior to ordinary human beings forcing ”unwilling” nations and free people to obey rules of a future one-world government? EU being the foundation and learning ground. The global warming bluff was one of the latest ”projects” towards ”one world – one people”.

    This is just what you Sophia Albertina now has focused on as far as Europe is concerned including of course the global warming hysteria and the total electronically control of all people and their lives. All leading to a one world government (sitting in the US? Not necessarily only Americans?) led by a new class of ”Übermensch”. No wonder that Valéry Giscard d’Estaing did know what the future of Europe would be.

    The Swedish minister for Foreign Affairs, Carl Bildt, is member of the Bilderberg Group and of course he knows what ”will come” in the world, that’s why they rapidly are building up the EU Foreign service all over the world to diminish the European national states own foreign services to a minimum finally to kill them completely as they will no longer be needed. No national states are excepted with their different languages and cultural diversity. No flags, no national hymns, no national defence forces etc.

    Why did the Soviet union and now Russia accept to let the Eastern European countries become ”free” states? And also to become members of EU and NATO? Was there a kind of a secret Ribbentrop pact, an agreement between super Powers? Easy. Those states fight for freedom could not be controlled any more in the new cyber era. The trick was instead to let them in the long predetermined time be part of a superior European Government that could keep them governed by laws, and forces of other means, for example economical rules and regulations secretly decided by groups like the Bilderberg Group and others which surely exists in secrecy.This includes not only political goals but also economical and commercial power considerations.

    Read more about the Bilderberg group on Wikipedia and you will understand what I’m talking about.

    The following could wet you appetite to read more. You will understand perhaps even better why even small matters might be just part of a wider ”project” all aiming to take control of people and nations.

    As a Swede I and many I know could not understand why Carl Bildt closed the Swedish Consulate General in New York, one of our oldest and most needed. It’s easy. He knows what the ”Übermensch” has ”decided” in secrecy in the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission or any other small society that has as a goal to change and indirectly rule the world. He is happy to play avant garde and is perhaps seeking a higher role in steering the destiny of the world? Without wearing a Rolex watch!.

    The aim of a type of a ”one-world one government” also goes for the global warming hysteria. A way of scaring the world population into accepting what ever is decided by their governments not the least in fiscal terms. We should not forget the importance of multinational organizations and how they are infiltrated by this type of self appointed ”Ûbermensch”. The IPPC’s role in the Global Warming-hysteria is one good example.

    The worlds leading political and military players are now the US and China with India coming. Will influential members och secret Bilderberg-type of groups be able to convince the Chinese to take part in their plans? Of course not now. Copenhagen showed that the Chinese were clever at this stage not to act on Obama’s (Bilderberg’s or Trilateral Commission’s?) advisers game play.

    The world financial crises? When you see the list of the members in the groups – I have mentioned here – and take into consideration that more groups unknown to us exists then you start wondering how on earth such world wide crises could reach such proportions and still are not yet ”solved”. Why? Perhaps because now is the time to kill all big individual players in the financial an commercial markets. How? By regulations, laws and pressures of different kinds, all leading to a ”better world”, a regulated world like EU and the member states and their total dependence on a central Brussels government.

    The freedom of the people of the EU-member states is over. The Swan is dead. The mass immigration of people who have Islam as a religion with sharia laws and other medieval rules are invading the western countries and that will kill what is left of human rights and freedom of the speech in our western societies. Like the communist doctrine once; destroy everything and take everything away from people and you can build everything up again but now the way you as a dictator or your little nomenclature like it. The hungry masses of North Korea are happy that they are alive and look up to their leaders as wise and carrying.

    The goal for today’s influential ”Übermensch” is a kind of a government of one-world. Like General Motors, the once commercial giant said. One world one market.


    Main article: List of Bilderberg participants
    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke leaving the 2008 Bilderberg Conference

    The steering committee does not publish a list of attendees, though some participants have publicly discussed their attendance. Historically, attendee lists have been weighted towards politicians, bankers, and directors of large businesses.[13]

    Heads of state, including Juan Carlos I of Spain and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, have attended meetings.[5][14] Prominent politicians from North America and Europe are past attendees. In past years, board members from many large publicly-traded corporations have attended, including IBM, Xerox, Royal Dutch Shell, Nokia and Daimler.[5]

    The 2009 meeting participants in Greece included: Greek prime minister Kostas Karamanlis; Finnish prime minister Matti Vanhanen;[15] Sweden foreign minister Carl Bildt; U.S. State Department number two James Steinberg; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; World Bank president Robert Zoellick; European Commission head José Manuel Barroso; Queen Sofia of Spain; and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands.[16]
    [edit] European Union

    In a European Parliament session in Brussels, Mario Borghezio, an Italian member of the European Parliament, questioned the nominations of Bilderberg and Trilateral attendees for the posts of EU President and EU foreign minister.[17][18]

    In 2009 the group had a dinner meeting at Castle of the Valley of the Duchess in Brussels, in the 12th of November, with the participation of Herman Van Rompuy, who later became the President of the European Council. [19] [20]
    [edit] Conspiracy theories

    Because of its utmost secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious plots. Critics include the John Birch Society,[21] the Canadian writer Daniel Estulin, British writer David Icke, American writer Jim Tucker, politician Jesse Ventura and radio host Alex Jones. In his 1991 Behold a Pale Horse, conspiracy theorist Milton William Cooper wrote that the Bilderberg group, in association with many other secret organizations, works towards the creation of a ”New World Order”.[22]

    The Bilderberg Group was the topic of an episode of the TruTV series Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura.[23]

    Bilderberg founding member and, for 30 years, a steering committee member, Denis Healey has said:[24]

    To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.

    In 2005 the then chairman Etienne Davignon discussed these accusations with the BBC.

    It is unavoidable and it doesn’t matter. There will always be people who believe in conspiracies but things happen in a much more incoherent fashion…When people say this is a secret government of the world I say that if we were a secret government of the world we should be bloody ashamed of ourselves.[25]

    G. William Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology, warns progressives, in search of an opponent that embodies the values they oppose, against embracing conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group and related organizations:

    The opponents are the corporate conservatives and the Republican Party, not the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers, and Bohemians. It is the same people more or less, but it puts them in their most important roles, as capitalists and political leaders, which are visible and legitimate… If thought of this way, then the role of a CFR as a place to try to hear new ideas and reach consensus is more readily understood, as is the function of a social club as a place that creates social cohesion. Moreover, those understandings of the CFR and the clubs [Bilderberg Group and Bohemian Grove] fit with the perceptions of the members of the elite.[26]

    [edit] Origins of conspiracy theories

    Before the 2001 meeting, a report in the Guardian stated:

    …the press have never been allowed access and all discussions are under Chatham House rules (no quoting). Not surprisingly, such ground rules, while attracting publicity-shy financiers, have also fuelled the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.[27]

    Jonathan Duffy, writing in BBC News Online Magazine states:

    No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted… In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.[28]

    Investigative journalist Chip Berlet, notes the existence of Bilderberger conspiracy theories as early as 1964 in the writings of conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly. In Berlet’s 1994 report Right Woos Left, published by Political Research Associates, he writes:

    The views on intractable godless communism expressed by Schwarz were central themes in three other bestselling books which were used to mobilize support for the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign. The best known was Phyllis Schlafly’s A Choice, Not an Echo, which suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.[29]

    [edit] Recent meetings
    Main article: List of Bilderberg meetings

    Recent meetings:

    * 2005 (5–8 May) at the Dorint Sofitel Seehotel Überfahrt in Rottach-Egern, Germany[30]
    * 2006 (8–11 June) at the Brookstreet Hotel in Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada[31]
    * 2007 (31 May – 3 June) at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel,[32] in Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey.
    * 2008 (5–8 June) at the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia, United States[9][33]
    * 2009 (14–16 May) at the Astir Palace resort in Athens, Greece[34][35]


    And when you read all about the Trilateral Commission (which most people have never heard of and even less understand that such a thing could exists) you know that there are forces even greater than making EU a Federal State. The whole world should be transformed, EU just being a part of the beginning to force people into perhaps the worst nightmare the world have ever seen. A world at the end – if successful – led by a few individuals.


    ”Conspiracy theories

    The John Birch Society believes that the Trilateral Commission is dedicated to the formation of one world government.[5]

    Certain critics, such as Alex Jones, an American paleoconservative of ”The Obama Deception” documentary, claim the ”Commission constitutes a conspiracy seeking to gain control of the U.S. Government to create a new world order.” Mike Thompson, Chairman of the Florida Conservative Union, said: ”It puts emphasis on interdependence, which is a nice euphemism for one-world government.”


  2. Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 343 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2 […]

  3. Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 348 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2, […]

  4. EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2 […]

  5. EU- an expensive pile of festering rubbish, mired in corruption, surrounded by inept and impotent politicians « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2 […]

  6. Who the Hell do You Think You Are: The Euro Game Is Up! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2 […]

  7. EU a stupid empire on purpose « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2 […]

  8. The active lying and deceit behind the creation of EU – The British story « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2 […]

Lämna ett svar till EU a stupid empire on purpose « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Avbryt svar

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: