Polish and British governments are bulldozing the Constitutional, Reform, Lisbon Treaty thing through parliament, ignoring the elephants in the room – their respective electorates.
If the political class of Europe is so confident of the EU project then why have they become so allergic to having referenda on the issue?
On February 28, the Sejm, the Polish parliament, voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by 357 votes to 55 with 7 abstentions. That’s virtually unanimous – a very rare collusion of politicians in Poland.
The Civic Platform led government does not want a referendum on this issue, and does not want the EU to be a political issue in general, as it was under the Kaczynski government.
So, a treaty that shifts and confuses the meaning of sovereignty even more than it has already become will not be put before the people. Tusk would probably win a ‘yes’ vote, though the necessary 50 percent turnout to validate the referendum would be a problem, so crushingly dull and irrelevant is much of the document to most Poles.
Brown-nosing Brussels
But Tusk never pretended to be keen on a referendum. He never led his voters to expect anything else. The same cannot be said of the UK PM, Gordon Brown. New Labour had promised a referendum on the original Constitutional Treaty, which got flushed down the toilet after the Dutch and French votes.
When practically the same document re-emerged as the ‘Lisbon Treaty’ Brown said that since the treaty was no longer a ‘constitution’ then he didn’t have to have a referendum on it. Brilliant!
And last week Gordon Brown’s brown-nosing New Labour MPs went along with the deceit, with only a handful voted against or abstained to ratify the EU Constitution Treaty dressed in Portuguese drag.
I think that Poles, the British and most Europeans are being held in contempt by their political class. There are serious issues involved in the Lisbon Treaty and we should have the right to a direct say in the decision making process.
The EU, from the very beginnings in the 1950s, has always been a project of European political elites. I don’t ever remember people marching through the streets demanding a department in Brussels set up to measure the size of people’s letter boxes (there is directives about this; I just got a new EU letter box! The bit you put the letters in must be within certain parameters...and should not be made of Genetically Modified products made in China). I don’t remember people chaining themselves to the railings demanding the Common Agricultural Policy. From the Coal and Steel act in the 1950s onwards, these ideas have come from political elites, not from social movements. The gap between Brussels and its ‘people’ has always been wide as a result.
One of the ideas behind the EU Constitution was to find a way to bind people closer to Brussels – to find, create a relationship and identity with society. But as long as national governments continue to stick a finger up at their electorates over EU matters, by-passing them on the road to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty then those Euro-elites are never going to get touchy-feely with me or anyone else.
Give us a referendum! What are you so scared of?
39 comments:
They are simply afraid that the idea will be rejected. Judging by the tone of debate, this fear is justified.
I think the biggest problem with the EU is that it's a project, rather than an issue. In general, people only care about issues: they don't want to be hungry, they don't want a curfew, they want to be safe and they want to be rich. For instance, there are no demonstrations in favour of CAP, but there have been many demonstrations about the issue of farming not being as profitable as farmers would like it to be. CAP is a project that provides a (flawed) solution to the issue of farming profitability.
So it's hard to get people excited about EU, because it's the wrong kind of concept. Also, we live in nation states. Our loyalties lie with our nations. We're not ready for the concept of pure civic state yet. And I don't know if we will ever be.
Asking people about Lisbon Treaty or compatible is basically asking them if they want another layer of goverment. Most people believe there is enough goverment as it is. Many of them don't even bother to ask themselves if it's a good or bad goverment. To them, all goverment is bad by definition, period.
All this talk about bananas and letter boxes is a good example. There are similar regulations on national levels and they are often contested. But the matter of dispute on a national level is usually whether those regulations are right or wrong. The same dispute on the EU level revolves around that filthy goverment putting their dirty fingers into our lives again.
The question is: can we afford to spend next 50 years debating the concept while the rest of the world moves on? The "Euro-elites" think we cannot, and I think they are right. There will need to be some kind of legitimisation at some point, bacause you can't just create a goverment of 500 million people over their heads, especially when it's 500 million of republicans. But some solutions are needed right now, because when the issues they answer to become apparent in 20 years' time, it will be too late.
To me, it's a kind of repetition of history. The first guy who attempted to reform the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was Sigismund III, the one whose son almost became tsar of Russia. But he was hugely unpopular in the Commonwealth, and frankly he was an idiot. So people opposed (they also opposed, because they were a caste society, and their loyalty lay with their caste, rather than the state). And when - 200 years later - they finally realized how much they needed those reforms, it was too late. If someone had managed to push those reforms over their heads back in 1600, that person would now have a monument in every Polish, Lithuanian, Belarussian and Ukrainian town. Instead of that, we have like a hundred thousand of monuments to our martyrs, because we had let Russia conquer us.
What folly to have a referendum on Lisbon Treaty, since when is it customary to pose a complicated question to a referendum. Most established democracies avoid referendums as much as is possible and then only hold them when there is a simple question. Having said that, some jurisdictions require referendums on certain things. Under German law there is no provision for referendum on a federal level, due to past abuses of this mechanism.
Can you just try and visualize a meaningful number of citizens in the EU studying the principals of constitutional law in preparation for such a vote. The reality would be more like a small number of poorly informed people without the necessary academic background coming forward to make a less than learned decision. And that’s just crazy.
What is wrong with the process is the political elites of Europe have failed to bring their case to the people i.e. sell the idea and it’s benefits or even acknowledge the existence of the idea. An absence of leaderships and the abundance of political cowardice to take responsibility that could perhaps cost them popularity have driven this behaviour.
When the various heads of government got together to give their blessing to the treaty, one commented that the public shouldn’t concern itself too much as this was just a treaty regulating the relationship between a group of nation states and certainly one would never see a European super state controlling defence and foreign policy.
Forget the referendum, it’s just not the way to go.
I tend to agree with Jan. I think it's pretty inevitable that the question people will answer will not be the same as the one actually posed.
In particular many people are likely simply to be answering the question in their minds: EU, good or bad / in or out.
This may be a reasonable question to pose; it is certainly better than asking people to vote on the contents of a document several thousands of pages long.
The EU has changed massively in a short period of time from 15 to 27 members, and its internal mechanisms were not designed for that level of membership. It seems reasonable that for the EU to be of an practical value we need to adapt it to suit its new configuration, which is what the Lisbon Treaty is about. 'Yes' or 'no' is an irrelevant set of responses. If not the Lisbon Treaty, then what instead?
This is far too complicated for a referendum, and why we elect representatives to parliament to look after our interests.
I'm in favour of the EU constitution but not in favour of having referendums on it.
First, as jannowak57 said, can you imagine people actually looking at the entire constitution and then making a rational decision? No, of course not. You could argue that "ok, then obviously the constitution is too long! Look at the US constitution!" Except that there's the whole issue of the many amendments that have been created over the years and the thousands more that have been proposed. It's still not as long as the EU constitution, but the EU is a slightly different animal.
Because of the first item, not only do I not want "regular people" voting on the constitution, I'm glad they aren't exactly because of the stereotypical British attitude that blurs the line between caution and debilitation paranoia when it comes to the EU. People point to regulations like the letterbox size and equate it with ...I don't know what they're thinking. Gestapo marching in the street, telling you what to do? There's no point in having an uninformed electorate voting on something simple, much less something complicated.
I've also never really understood that fear of "the political elite" that get voted into office this year ...and voted right back out a few years later. How is that elite? And why is it that the same politicians that more-or-less successfully govern our various countries are so thoroughly incapable of picking some people to be representatives in the EU?
Can you have it both ways? Of course, if you're British. Part of the EU and bitching about it to the point that the average Pole would blush and turn away.
jan et al...
What folly to have a referendum on Lisbon Treaty, since when is it customary to pose a complicated question to a referendum.
This is one of the arguments the New Labour toddies are using in the UK, and as usual smacks of contempt for average voters.
I am not saying that Lisbon is not a complicated document, and it is up to our great, superior leaders to explain and debate that document.
There are general principles in the treaty that change and take away sovereign rights of national parliaments. This should be brought out into the open, debated, and then let people decide if they want this to happen or not.
Thisn is a constitutional issue and as such should be put to referendum – it actually says this in the Polish constitution (though not the British one, as they make it up as they go along – and Brown’s behaviour over this issue demonstrates why the British need a written constitution without delay.
Europeans suffer from memory disorders, they forget things they need to remember and dwell on things they should collectively forget. During the last century one could have categorized Europe as a failed continent with the squabbling tribes bringing Europe to near total destruction twice in one century. As a consequence Nato and the EU came into being and these structures allowed for the longest period of peace and prosperity known in European history.
It was clear to the “European political elites” that the nation state had to be diminished in favour of a European identity. The first successful proposals for European cooperation came in 1951 with the European Coal and Steel Community, linking these aspects of the economy together made the possibility of war unlikely. The dream behind this small start was what Europe is becoming today but it could not be articulated fully or publicly. Can you just imagine asking the voters to consent to this only 6 years after a brutal war?
It is now imperative to update the mechanisms by which the EU is run however a portion of the public is not emotionally prepared to accept what is clearly a very visible loss of sovereign rights of the national parliaments. No matter, the process will continue, without anyone noticing integration has advanced to a point that reversal isn’t an option.
For all the nay sayers there are vast numbers of people who support the process all be it quietly like the manufacturer who has access to a market of 500 million or a young professional looking for career opportunities in a community of 500 million.
What does this vote have to do with the price of bread?
Isn't that, bottom line, what most people really care about?
Hereabouts in the US, the price of wheat has gone up about fivefold in the past year.
The price of pizza, a common price denominator like bread and oil, is skyrocketing.
Interesting stats here including some about Europe as well:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/10/43548/3353/533/473391
Jan
It was clear to the “European political elites” that the nation state had to be diminished in favour of a European identity.
And this was the problem I was trying to highlight in my post. An elite project cannot force a ‘European Identity’ from above. And they are not even close now. Top down projects like this one will always have this drawback. They sit and wonder why they can;t transform a vague feeling of Europeaness that most of us have into some kind of quasi-supranational aspiration. I noticed they even balked at trying to get that european flag thing through this time. It’s daft and antidemocratic and much of the EU is just a waste of time. I am fed up having to watch an elite trying get noticed and failing miserably, like some socially awkward teenager at a party. Change and identity gotta come from the bottom up, mate.
EU - around these parts, the EU has been a participant in putting up the price of food recently.
Come on. Let's demand a vote and have this debate matter. Because I think there whoild be much more debate than there is now.
I agree wholeheartedly with the don't have a referendum comments. This is far too important to be aloud thrown of course by an illinformed electorate. As far as the sense o common identity goes. The US was legal a nation from 1776 onwards, but it was not until virtualy a century later that a true sense of natiohood was formed as a result of the civil war. Now i am ot obviously suggesting we organise such a catachilismic event, but we must understand that the EU is stil by comparrison a baby.
Churchil once saud that the biggest argument agaist democracy was to go and have a five minute conversation with the average voter, and to some extent that is still true. Many people don't care enough to understand what the issues truly are and perhaps we should just place are trust in the hands of those we ellected.
I agree wholeheartedly with the don't have a referendum comments. This is far too important to be aloud thrown of course by an illinformed electorate. As far as the sense o common identity goes. The US was legal a nation from 1776 onwards, but it was not until virtualy a century later that a true sense of natiohood was formed as a result of the civil war. Now i am ot obviously suggesting we organise such a catachilismic event, but we must understand that the EU is stil by comparrison a baby.
Churchil once saud that the biggest argument agaist democracy was to go and have a five minute conversation with the average voter, and to some extent that is still true. Many people don't care enough to understand what the issues truly are and perhaps we should just place are trust in the hands of those we ellected.
Change and identity gotta come from the bottom up, mate.
That sounds mighty sixties.
I can understand the argument for a debate but the referendum model seems awkward.
Why not a constitutional convention with special delegates? That's how the US Constitution was rafified. Or use the EU delegates to vote? What were they chosen to be doing in the first place?
When in modern history have we experienced change based on a bottom up situation, it seems in nearly all situations whether for good or evil the situation was driven by some sort of political elite that fashioned itself into a societal vanguard to advance their cause.
As had been already mentioned the US took nearly their first hundred years for people to feel they were firstly American not say Virginian or Texan.
I agree that Europe’s leaders have done a laughable job of selling the process to the public. But lets not forget the public isn’t all that fired up about it either, it’s been a slowly advancing project mainly in the background, now that we have come to an important junction it’s been noticed.
If it wasn’t for the fear of using the “constitution” word then perhaps a more rational process could have been used such as constitutional convention of sorts held in the public light and then ratified by national governments.
No educated European can say in good conscience that they didn’t understand were the European project was heading, and if not the European project then what? Who’s going to buy into the return of the feuding 27 tribes?
Varus
I agree wholeheartedly with the don't have a referendum comments. This is far too important to be aloud thrown of course by an illinformed electorate.
Varus – I am going to presume you are being sarcastic.
I am going to presume that because you are a left/liberal type with your heart in the right place, you are being ironic.
If you are not being ironic etc then you are showing how much contempt the ‘left’ has now for his fellow man and woman. How times change. I would only have expected that kind of comment even twenty years ago to have appeared only in the letters pages of the Daily Telegraph or the ...even...Daily Mail....eeeeekkkk. How times change...
Geez
Why not a constitutional convention with special delegates?
Noooooo! Pleeeeeeaaase!! Geez wants to turn European politics into a Democratic primary!!!
Will you never learn?
Jan
When in modern history have we experienced change based on a bottom up
Why make the ‘modern history’ privoso? Has something changed in the ‘modern’ period that forbids change from below?
All the most significant changes in ‘modern’ history have come from movements from below. Check out the Charterists which pushed for the vote in England. Or maybe even the women’s movement, first and second wave...the civil rights movement in the US....dare I suggest that Solidarnosc had real social and political roots in Polish society...?
These were not elite projects they were social movements. If the EU was a result of that kind of movement, with genuine popular support then we would not be having this discussion.
eez wants to turn European politics into a Democratic primary!!!
Better yet, caucuses, baby!
More seriously, what kind of civil rights movement in the US would there have been minus Kennedy?
And Solidarnosc without the the impetus of JP2?
Etc.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of events with respect to change from the bottom up.
Lets not get carried away with the all too romantic notion that some spontaneous urge for democracy filled the hearts of the Polish working masses and they came forth and brought down communism. When communism failed to meet the basic needs of food and shelter to a standard that the average person could at least tolerate, it was over. Up until that time if some basic needs were met by the state and that was coupled with a dose of fear in the state security apparatus, the status quo prevailed with a few minor rebellions here and there. The stage was set for a general mobilization of society against the system and this was done by a ridiculously tiny number of people. The core of this movement was made up of workers involved in years of anti-government struggle, in Wałęsa’s case at least 10 years before solidarity was formed. In addition intellectual dissidents, people who started their struggle in 1968 and highly educated clergy with charismatic leadership joined in. Many of these people had already spent time in the PRL prison system and were completed committed to bring it down. This group would have numbered less then a hundred people and certainly were not typical of the working masses. The next tier were the activists that took their lead and ideological direction from the core, which numbered less than 25,000 and finally the rank and file of 10 million members at solidarities height.
I thick this is a more top down structure with a clearly defined vanguard leading society to a desired change.
Br,
we live in representative democracies and as such elect representatives to take desicions for us. We are not alas in ancient Athens where we can all sit around and debate these things. How do you see such a referendum working without it being reduced to a simple in or out vote? That said, perhaps that would be the simplest and countries who don't want to be part of the new arrangement could opt out. If enough did then the project wouuld have failed and they can all go back to the drawing board.
I do not hold contempt for my fellow man as you think, but mearly see this as too complicated a thing to hold in a referndum and feel that any result, positive or negative, would be skewed.
Even with an integrated vanguard and cadre, Solidarnosc would not have been as successful as it was without the charismatic influence of JP2. (Yea, I know there are those who sillily insist this vanguard sold out to the commies)
That's why I think it's so unwise and myopic to dump on folks like Obama. Win or lose, he's opening up the windows of change.
vangaards are important = no doubt, jan, but Solidarnosc had ten million signed up members...it had alternative media, alternative political process, it was analternative civil society. It had roots that the Eurocrats would wet their pants for.
So Varus, you think if someone asked you, after say a three week campaign, whether you were for or against the Lisbon Treaty it would be 'too complicated' a question for you? What kind of school did you go, mate?
geez said: "Even with an integrated vanguard and cadre, Solidarnosc would not have been as successful as it was without the charismatic influence of JP2
I think you are seriously overstating the influence of JP2 (aka maj. Wojtyla).. In the famous words of Uncle Joe "how many tank divisions did he have?"...
How many divisions did Lech Walesa have?
How many divisions did Gandhi have?
The European project is very simple: it is a coup d'etat directed against every sovereign European nation. Its' genius is that it is being done in 'slow-motion' so that its' victims don't recognise what is being done to them.
It main weapons are bribery and blackmail.
Beatroot said: “Eurocrats would wet their pants for.”
They should organize a motivated vanguard and proceed to manufacture the support this project needs. Referendums are not suitable for complex issues, even after a period of debate and campaigning the general knowledge on the question would remain poor and therefore not good enough to render a learned judgement by a significant number of voters. Most citizens in a western democracy are focused on their own lives and do not make an effort to educate themselves on an issue, even if their educational level would allow them to do so. Society has moved to a form representative democracy that has our elected representative make the decision because of the complexity of modern society.
heat seeker said: “think you are seriously overstating the influence of JP2”
Solidarity would have succeeded without JP2‘s endorsement, but not nearly as quickly and as easily or for that matter non-violently. He was substantively responsible for this becoming a self limiting revolution which stayed on track even when many apposed that direction. Both courses of action had their merits and a downside. Lets not loose site that he was important enough in the scheme of things to have the Kremlin try to assassinate him.
geez said... “I think it's so unwise and myopic to dump on folks like Obama”
The democrats biggest problem is not Obama winning but rather loosing to Hillary, in that event with his highly charged and emotional supporters, which may not find themselves motivated to close ranks and proceed against the republicans as a unified party. Should the race continue to the convention floor, how the race finishes will matter as much as who won.
The open letter sent to Le Monde by V. Giscard d'Estaing in November makes it rather clear that the Lisbon Treaty was deliberately written in an obfuscated manner.
Brad Zimmerman: "I don't know what they're thinking. Gestapo marching in the street, telling you what to do?"
Well, no. Just, say, mounted police "accidentally" riding over the "I want a referendum" slogan written in sand on a beach in Bournemouth. Or maybe people being fined for selling fruit only by the pound and the ounce. Or, ambitious biofuel targets increasing the price of food.
No, the EU won't tell you what to do; they'll leave the enforcement to your provincial government.
Lech Walesa.. divisions?? Sorry geez but I doubt Lech even knows what the word means. He was just a boob picked up and carried away by the current of history... The guy can't whistle and wipe his ass at the same time (savor that visual...) It's the Michniks and the Kurons of Poland that were true heroes - not the unemployed loudmouth who took every opportunity to crawl up the churches ass with a great deal of gusto and total disregard for the fact that his office was charged with serving his nation not his church.
I'm not going to discuss Gandhi - don't know enough about the history of that part of the world.
Solidarity would have succeeded without JP2‘s endorsement, but not nearly as quickly and as easily or for that matter non-violently.
Then it wouldn't have been Solidarity but rather something very, very different. That would make a neat novel. You can give me 10% of your royalties if you write it, 57. Payable in Euros of course.
Had the Turkish gentleman succeeded in Saint Peter's Square you would have seen the alternative ending.
BR Said: So Varus, you think if someone asked you, after say a three week campaign, whether you were for or against the Lisbon Treaty it would be 'too complicated' a question for you? What kind of school did you go, mate?
Br i'm surprised! I ofcourse would look at the Treaty on the net before i'd vote regardless of three weeks campainging. The problem is that even if you had three months campaigning a lot of people would still not investigate the issues.
Granted that people do need more information about this and that perhaps the thing shouldn't be rushed through parliament, but as i said we live in a represenative democracy and we have people paid huge amounts to look at things for us while we eat and make merry!!!
Had the Turkish gentleman succeeded in Saint Peter's Square you would have seen the alternative ending.
Some time ago, I read that somebody was working on the Sobieski Battle of Vienna story for a movie. Does anybody know what came of that?
BTW, Varus I thought ala Spritzer that it was the politicians who drink and make merry while we should content ourselve to get screwed....
Touché
Oh, that Turkish gentleman! A bit slow at times, me in my advanced middle ages. But still, JP2 was much of the inspiration and provided much of the guidance for Solidarnosc during its formative period. I don't think too much of that direction would have been shaken off or discarded very easily if he was successfully asassinated.
Also, shouldn't the constitution be debated vis-a-vis the upcoming parliamentary elections of which most Poles don't seem to be aware according to Polskie Radio???
http://www.polskieradio.pl/zagranica/news/artykul77850_Kwasniewski_to_come_back_as_MEP.html
geez said...” I don't think too much of that direction would have been shaken off”
The assassination attempt came in May of 1981; well before the real danger of things going violent had to be attended to. The other consequence would have been a weaker or more timid position on the part of a church no longer led by JP2. He alone directed the churches effort of support such as couriering messages and money to Solidarnosc and receiving intelligence from the CIA on the broader picture. All Poles would have viewed the assassination as Moscow’s work and in itself could have triggered violence on a massive scale.
geez said: “Kwasniewski”
This guy is like a bad vampire movie, keeps coming back. Somebody get the stake, garlic and holly water.
geez said...” I don't think too much of that direction would have been shaken off”
The assassination attempt came in May of 1981; well before the real danger of things going violent had to be attended to. The other consequence would have been a weaker or more timid position on the part of a church no longer led by JP2. He alone directed the churches effort of support such as couriering messages and money to Solidarnosc and receiving intelligence from the CIA on the broader picture. All Poles would have viewed the assassination as Moscow’s work and in itself could have triggered violence on a massive scale.
geez said: “Kwasniewski”
This guy is like a bad vampire movie, keeps coming back. Somebody get the stake, garlic and holly water.
What Poles at the time didn't see the assassination as Moscow's work?
Who / what groups would have spearheaded the violent reaction if he was taken out?
Obviously not the Church as you recognize.
Elements of Solidarnosc? Which?
Methinks any violent reaction would have been met with an end to western support not to mention a more violent reaction on the part of J-ski or the Soviets themselves.
Also, shouldn't the constitution be debated vis-a-vis the upcoming parliamentary elections of which most Poles don't seem to be aware according to Polskie Radio???
http://www.polskieradio.pl/zagranica/news
You mean the European parliament elections, which are in fact in 2009, so not up and coming. I think the site you refer to stated that the election was this year. That was incorrect and an email to the boss there about that may be useful.
english.section@polishradio.pl
Y'mean I can't even trust Polskie Radio to get the most basic facts straight?
Hallo alle, ich bin Frau April Suggs, schnell möchte ich dieses Medium nutzen, um ein Zeugnis auf wie Gott mich gerichtet zu scheren ein
Legit und echte Darlehen Kreditgeber, die mein Leben von Gras auf Gnade aus sehr schlecht in eine reiche Frau, jetzt kann, verwandelt haben
sich rühmen, eine gesunde und wohlhabende Leben ohne Stress und finanziellen Schwierigkeiten. Nach so vielen Monaten versuchen, einen Kredit zu erhalten
im Internet und betrogen wurde die Summe von $8.250 wurde ich so verzweifelt aus ein legit Darlehen Kreditgeber online einen Kredit zu bekommen
Wer nicht meine Schmerzen hinzugefügt wird, dann habe ich beschlossen, einen Freund von mir zu wenden, der vor kurzem ein Darlehen online bekam, diskutierten wir
über das Thema und zu unseren Schluss sagte sie mir über eine Frau namens Frau Jennifer Arbeit Mann, die die Rückendeckung von Jennifer
Darlehen Unternehmen, So ich eine Summe Darlehen beantragt (450, 000.00USD), Rechnungen zu bezahlen, und starten Sie ein gutes Geschäft mit niedrigen Zinsen
Rate von 3 %, so dass das Darlehen einfach ohne Stress und alle Vorbereitungen genehmigt wurde genommen bezüglich des Darlehens
übertragen und in weniger als zwei (2) Tage des Darlehens in meiner Bank hinterlegt wurde, so will ich zur Beratung benötigen ein Darlehen an eine
schnell kontaktieren sie per: (als jenniferworkmanloancompany@yahoo.com) sie weiß es nicht bin, damit ich bete, dass Gott segnen
Ihr für die guten Dinge, die sie in meinem Leben getan hat.
Hallo alle, ich bin Frau April Suggs, schnell möchte ich dieses Medium nutzen, um ein Zeugnis auf wie Gott mich gerichtet zu scheren ein
Legit und echte Darlehen Kreditgeber, die mein Leben von Gras auf Gnade aus sehr schlecht in eine reiche Frau, jetzt kann, verwandelt haben
sich rühmen, eine gesunde und wohlhabende Leben ohne Stress und finanziellen Schwierigkeiten. Nach so vielen Monaten versuchen, einen Kredit zu erhalten
im Internet und betrogen wurde die Summe von $8.250 wurde ich so verzweifelt aus ein legit Darlehen Kreditgeber online einen Kredit zu bekommen
Wer nicht meine Schmerzen hinzugefügt wird, dann habe ich beschlossen, einen Freund von mir zu wenden, der vor kurzem ein Darlehen online bekam, diskutierten wir
über das Thema und zu unseren Schluss sagte sie mir über eine Frau namens Frau Jennifer Arbeit Mann, die die Rückendeckung von Jennifer
Darlehen Unternehmen, So ich eine Summe Darlehen beantragt (450, 000.00USD), Rechnungen zu bezahlen, und starten Sie ein gutes Geschäft mit niedrigen Zinsen
Rate von 3 %, so dass das Darlehen einfach ohne Stress und alle Vorbereitungen genehmigt wurde genommen bezüglich des Darlehens
übertragen und in weniger als zwei (2) Tage des Darlehens in meiner Bank hinterlegt wurde, so will ich zur Beratung benötigen ein Darlehen an eine
schnell kontaktieren sie per: (als jenniferworkmanloancompany@yahoo.com) sie weiß es nicht bin, damit ich bete, dass Gott segnen
Ihr für die guten Dinge, die sie in meinem Leben getan hat.
Post a Comment