SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,873 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Chinese have made a big oil discovery in Niger and it will be exploited by the Chinese

Le Niger va produire du pétrole

Une entreprise chinoise l’exploitera

Le ministre nigérien de la Communication et porte-parole du gouvernement, Mohamed Ben Omar, en visite au Sénégal, a déclaré ce mercredi à Dakar que son pays va bientôt produire du pétrole après la découverte d’une réserve de plus de 300 millions de barils dans la région d’Agadez, au nord du pays.


jeudi 12 juin 2008, par Panapress

En visite au Sénégal depuis vendredi dernier, Mohamed Ben Omar a tenu une conférence de presse ce mercredi au cours de laquelle il a indiqué que le Niger a signé un contrat de partage de production avec une société chinoise "China national oil and gaz development and exploration corporation" (CNODC) qui va permettre au pays de produire du pétrole.

"L’avenir se profile sous de meilleurs auspices", a-t-il indiqué au cours de la rencontre avec la presse nationale et internationale à Dakar. Selon le ministre nigérien, ce contrat va rapporter à l’Etat du Niger 127 milliards de FCFA, trois mois après la signature du contrat qui a eu lieu le 02 juin dernier.

Le contrat prévoit en outre la construction d’une raffinerie et d’un oléoduc qui aura une longueur de près de 2000 km jusqu’au port de Cotonou, au Bénin. Il a indiqué que la société chinoise va produire 20 000 barils de pétrole par jour, alors que la consommation du Niger est de 7 000 barils/jour.

"A l’horizon 2014, les réserves seront multipliées par deux pour se situer à plus de 650 millions de barils" a-t-il estimé.

Evoquant les potentialités de son pays, le porte-parole du gouvernement nigérien a déclaré qu’il n’est pas superflu de dire que son pays est un scandale minier car a-t-il ajouté, "nous n’avons pas trouvé seulement de l’uranium, mais aussi de l’or, du manganèse, du phosphate, du charbon, etc".

Il a invité à ce propos les opérateurs économiques sénégalais à venir investir dans son pays où des prospections entreprises ont permis par ailleurs de découvrir une réserve de 10 milliards de m3 de gaz dans le bloc de Agadem au centre-est du pays.

Se disant particulièrement satisfait des contacts entrepris avec les opérateurs économiques sénégalais, le ministre nigérien a précisé qu’une mission économique sénégalaise est attendue dans son pays durant les prochains mois pour booster la coopération économique entre les deux pays.

Les échanges économiques entre le Sénégal et le Niger restent faibles en dépit d’un accord de coopération signé en avril 1981 et d’un traité d’amitié signé le 19 avril 1982 et ratifié en février 1989. Le montant des exportations du Sénégal vers le Niger est estimé à 1,939 milliard de FCFA, contre 1 milliard pour les importations sénégalaises en provenance de ce pays.
 

·
resU deretsigeR
Joined
·
2,381 Posts
wow, this is just amazing!
and this is just a start. there is so much unexplored riches in the continent, the mind boggles!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
I still prefer the Chinese to the Americans anyday
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,895 Posts
When will Ethiopia get to drink up some oil:cheers:. Hopefully soon :nuts: :gunz: , Maybe not.
 

·
Nkrabea Nni Kwatibea
Joined
·
3,715 Posts
The Chinese have made a big oil discovery in Niger and it will be exploited by the Chinese
i'm so happy about the discovery, but am a bit worried about the chinese "exploiting" the discovery. :eek:hno:
 

·
Mister One Million
Joined
·
5,485 Posts
I still prefer the Chinese to the Americans anyday
The ones I worry about are the French, because they get far too involved in internal politics. The US used to do this, but since the cold war ended many of America's bad habits have gone away.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
728 Posts
The ones I worry about are the French, because they get far too involved in internal politics. The US used to do this, but since the cold war ended many of America's bad habits have gone away.
What does it have anything to do with the French here ? even if anything they do from now on ,it's the order from the US ,didn't you see that new French president went to the US " to mend "the broken relationship with the US from the previous French presidency ? grow up and follow a little more about world politic honey
 

·
Mister One Million
Joined
·
5,485 Posts
What does it have anything to do with the French here ? even if anything they do from now on ,it's the order from the US ,didn't you see that new French president went to the US " to mend "the broken relationship with the US from the previous French presidency ? grow up and follow a little more about world politic honey
Would you like to rephrase what you just posted using actual sentences?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,873 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Carver02, at least the French kept some ties, people like Robert Mugabe would have been removed by now if Zim were a former French colony. Yes, it is interference but a Zim free of Mugabe would be better than one with him. The UK left their former colonies alone and even if they fall to pieces, they don´t even turn an eye to it, look how the British politicians behaved towards Nigeria in the 90´s. I WILL AND CAN NEVER EVER FORGET this. but this is another story and not the topic of this thread.

But the Niger oil doesn´t get exploited by French companies but by the Chinese and most of France´s economic interests concerning Africa are no longer like in the 80´s. Today French-Nigerian trade is bigger than French- Francophone States in Africa (south of Sahara). Same goes for France- South Africa trade which is developping very well. Visit: http://www.dree.org
Sarkozy is the first French president that only looks to business and he gives a damn for history, symbloism or personal ties (for example Chirac is befriended with former Senegalse president Abou Diouf, he is the godfather of a new born baby of Abou Diouf´s granddaughter). You won´t find these strong and intimate ties between any British politician and an ex-British colony in Africa or elsewhere.
Some top French politicians were born in Africa like Dominique de Villepin in Marocco or Segolène Royale in Dakar, Senegal.
French military presence and aid is waning allover Africa (60 000 French soldiers in the 60´s in Africa to 12 000 soldiers today 4000 of those are stationed on Reunion Island and 3500 in Ivory Coast which will soon leave, this will be further reduced). Sarkozy wants to close many military bases across Africa (starting with Ivory Coast). Wade the Senegalse president to be known for his pro-American stance said that the closure of military bases in Africa is not automatically a good sign. I can send you the interview. Moreover, Sarkozy wants to "europeanize" military aid to africa and European countries suffer from amnesia. Germany strictly refuses to get involved which means paying money because Germany said that it has no interest and ties with Africa SEVERAL TIMES, forget about the British...some smaller European countries like Poland or Ireland are there to "assist". So who will provide the security in the future? the "efficient" and chronically deficient African Union??
In short, when it comes to frencophone african states ,French economic interest in Africa today is mainly in Magreb countries (Tunisia is leading , reason: good business climate, good infrastructure, political stability).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,873 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Carver02, at least the French kept some ties, people like Robert Mugabe would have been removed by now if Zim were a former French colony. Yes, it is interference but a Zim free of Mugabe would be better than one with him. The UK left their former colonies alone and even if they fall to pieces, they don´t even turn an eye to it, look how the British politicians behaved towards Nigeria in the 90´s. I WILL AND CAN NEVER EVER FORGET this. but this is another story and not the topic of this thread.

But the oil in the Republic of Niger won´t get exploited by French companies but by the Chinese and most of France´s economic interests concerning Africa are no longer like in the 80´s. Today French-Nigerian trade is bigger than French- Francophone States in Africa (south of Sahara). Same goes for France- South Africa trade which is developping very well. Visit: http://www.dree.org
Sarkozy is the first French president that only looks to business and he gives a damn for history, symbloism or personal ties (for example Chirac is befriended with former Senegalse president Abou Diouf, he is the godfather of a new born baby of Abou Diouf´s granddaughter). You won´t find these strong and intimate ties between any British politician and an ex-British colony in Africa or elsewhere.
Some top French politicians were born in Africa like Dominique de Villepin in Marocco or Segolène Royale in Dakar, Senegal.
French military presence and aid is waning allover Africa (60 000 French soldiers in the 60´s in Africa to 12 000 soldiers today 4000 of those are stationed on Reunion Island and 3500 in Ivory Coast which will soon leave, this will be further reduced). Sarkozy wants to close many military bases across Africa (starting with Ivory Coast). Wade the Senegalse president to be known for his pro-American stance said that the closure of military bases in Africa is not automatically a good sign. I can send you the interview. Moreover, Sarkozy wants to "europeanize" military aid to africa and European countries suffer from amnesia. Germany strictly refuses to get involved which means paying money because Germany said that it has no interest and ties with Africa SEVERAL TIMES, forget about the British...some smaller European countries like Poland or Ireland are there to "assist". So who will provide the security in the future? the "efficient" and chronically deficient African Union??
In short, when it comes to frencophone african states ,French economic interest in Africa today is mainly in Magreb countries (Tunisia is leading , reason: good business climate, good infrastructure, political stability).
 

·
Mister One Million
Joined
·
5,485 Posts
Nice post Matt, and I agree with much of what you say. France's relationship with Africa is certainly evolving, and it's clear that the Brits have been less interventionist in Africa. Although, they played an important role in Sierra Leone. But I'm not sure which foreign policy has been better for Africa.

Sure, France has maintained stability in some countries through direct and indirect intervention, and we have to wonder if those countries would have fallen into civil war without them. But the French were also propping up authoritarian systems and may have prevented the emergence of genuine democratic behavior.

You mention Nigeria in the 90s. The Brits did keep repeating the chorus of the three Ds: devaluation of the currency, deregulation of the economy, and democracy. Sure, they could have applied more pressure but there was a limit to how involved they were willing to get. The result has been the emergence of home-grown democracy in Nigeria. Now, I know Nigeria's democracy is flawed, corrupt, and slow, but it will improve with time. There is an institutional learning process and a political socialization process which will take place over time, and governance in Nigeria will improve, and when it does it will be home-grown genuine democracy, rather than an artificial government opposed from outside.

As for security in Africa, that's for the Africans to provide. Sure, they can seek (and probably get) some help with training, logistics, and intelligence, but they can't expect to outsource their security to European countries. There will be exceptions, especially with smaller countries like Djibouti and Chad. But expecting Europeans to manage internal security matters for Africa is old-fashioned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,873 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Nice post Matt, and I agree with much of what you say. France's relationship with Africa is certainly evolving, and it's clear that the Brits have been less interventionist in Africa. Although, they played an important role in Sierra Leone. But I'm not sure which foreign policy has been better for Africa.
Yes, French behaviour is more paternalist than that of the Brits. Take example of how their oversea department are literally fed and nourished and compare this to what amount of money British oversea department receive...and still many African countries receive a lot of aid given the fact that economic interest has been on the decline till the end of Cold War. (I mean French-speaking Africa South of Sahara)

Brist involvement?

Yeah only in Sierra Leone after the war destroyed the country entirely and turned a beautiful country into a nation of beggars and amputated human beings! Really late...The Brits didn´t even cast an eye towards Sierra Leone.

Sure, France has maintained stability in some countries through direct and indirect intervention, and we have to wonder if those countries would have fallen into civil war without them. But the French were also propping up authoritarian systems and may have prevented the emergence of genuine democratic behavior.
Nobody can fully answer this question. It is more complex than you think. I won´t enlarge here.

You mention Nigeria in the 90s. The Brits did keep repeating the chorus of the three Ds: devaluation of the currency, deregulation of the economy, and democracy. Sure, they could have applied more pressure but there was a limit to how involved they were willing to get. The result has been the emergence of home-grown democracy in Nigeria. Now, I know Nigeria's democracy is flawed, corrupt, and slow, but it will improve with time. There is an institutional learning process and a political socialization process which will take place over time, and governance in Nigeria will improve, and when it does it will be home-grown genuine democracy, rather than an artificial government opposed from outside.
Let´s hope so.:)

As for security in Africa, that's for the Africans to provide. Sure, they can seek (and probably get) some help with training, logistics, and intelligence, but they can't expect to outsource their security to European countries. There will be exceptions, especially with smaller countries like Djibouti and Chad. But expecting Europeans to manage internal security matters for Africa is old-fashioned.
I do agree with what you said...but is Africa really solving matters? Be fair and honest to yourself, just look at the continent, a new conflict in some of the conflict prone regions could spark off in matter of a few days.

Forget about the UN, all they can do is go and abuse children and women, stay idle while the killing fields are raging next door ....it might sound horribly neo-colonial but without European intervention, more countries would haven fallen apart (I don´t want to give any names here).

Anyway, as for France: Sarkozy clearly said that his country will not wish to be torn into any internal future conflict again. All of the post-colonial military accords - some of the clauses have remained secret till today - will be abolished or re-defined and made public. This will mean no future immediate and prompt intervention which might translate into more loss of life and destruction.

Which African nations are able to solve a conflict by military means?

I can only think of Nigeria, SA and maybe Ethiopia.

What the African union and Europe should do is work close together...but apart from France again, there is no other European country interested to stand by. Germany said that it has no interest in Africa and does not want to get involved, this was written several times in the papers and expressed by the the ministers and chancellor herself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,873 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Carver02, believe me I do wish from bottom of my heart durable peace for Africa but I think that this can only be solved with strong cooperation and will with European countries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,966 Posts
Without trying to turn this into a controversial issue but I've always viewed The Brits as far better colonizers than the French. One only has to look at the relatively wealthy Southern African nations and consistently stable outposts like Ghana and until recently Kenya. Through a global standpoint comparing past English colonies to its French counterparts their is a general trend favoring the Brits. I think this is a testament to superior British governing and laying of essential infrastructure like roads and railway projects. India for example very railroad independent owes much of its system to the Brits. Argentina who weren't even colonized by the Brits owe them the same in that regard.

That said I'd still take the French over the Spanish and Portuguese any day! :lol:

People get mad when western powers interfere in other nation's affairs, now people complain when they do nothing. Fact is you'll never please everyone, my bet is that Western governments will keep to symbolic gestures and positions but their is no hunger or general geo political importance to aggressive action in Sub-Saharan Africa. Some say this is a possitive evolution others will fret.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,873 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Without trying to turn this into a controversial issue but I've always viewed The Brits as far better colonizers than the French. One only has to look at the relatively wealthy Southern African nations and consistently stable outposts like Ghana and until recently Kenya. Through a global standpoint comparing past English colonies to its French counterparts their is a general trend favoring the Brits. I think this is a testament to superior British governing and laying of essential infrastructure like roads and railway projects. India for example very railroad independent owes much of its system to the Brits. Argentina who weren't even colonized by the Brits owe them the same in that regard.

That said I'd still take the French over the Spanish and Portuguese any day!

People get mad when western powers interfere in other nation's affairs, now people complain when they do nothing. Fact is you'll never please everyone, my bet is that Western governments will keep to symbolic gestures and positions but their is no hunger or general geo political importance to aggressive action in Sub-Saharan Africa. Some say this is a possitive evolution others will fret.
Yes, divide et impera, that´s what the Brits excelled in.

It might have escaped your notice that the former French colonies were heavily protected and subsidized till early 90´s (and still is up to today) which was not the case for the former British African colonies. (especially Ivory Coast, Gabon, Senegal, and Cameroon under the first president which was a good president not like Biya today). African people from former French countries didn´t need a visa to travel to France (in some countries this was the case till 1995!!!!).

The key countries where France was heavily involved (not just physically) were stable till the 90´s and in some cases this is still the case for countries such as Senegal which has never known a single coup d´état since independence.

people form French-speaking african countries needn´t bother about inflation, their currency has always been strong and stable, there are many well-established instruments of fiscal discipline. Having low inflation in CFA countries has been the norm as opposed to the rest of Africa where you had double and in some cases triple or even worse inflation figures like Zimbabwe. Their Monetary Union is an example to follow for the rst of africa (free flow of goods, a lot - but still expandable - hamrmonisation between CFA countries, regular meetings etc.)



You mentioned Ghana, Ghana was a very hopeless country in the 70´s and 80´s while Ivory Coast prospered and grew arrogant and become No.3 in Africa or No.2 (if you take out SA which was still under apartheid rule). (you should have visited Ivory Coast twenty years back, it was really beautiful, ask any Ivorian guy he will talk about the "good old times")

Refering to Southern Africa: And take out South Africa, SA has a special role within Africa.

Ok, you had Zimbabwe but what else?

Don´t tell me Namibia, please!

Anyway, all colonizers were bad but I prefer a French or Portuguse colonies over the British because at least the latter didn´t invent a mad system like apartheid.... that´s why the relations between whites and blacks in francophone or lusophone Africa is more "relaxed". Seeing mixed race couples in Ivory Coast was the norm and not the exception. My father who is Nigerian and travelled a lot in French-speaking Africa when we lived in Ivory coast always remarked this and he was not the only one to do so.

I think one thing that the French failed to do in their former colonies as opposed to the Brits is that paternalist and "Big Daddy" policy.

Maybe this has helped Ghana in some way (STANDING bad weather ALONE !!!) in the long term as opposed to Ivory Coast, for example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,966 Posts
Yes, divide et impera, that´s what the Brits excelled in.

It might have escaped your notice that the former French colonies were heavily protected and subsidized till early 90´s (and still is up to today) which was not the case for the former British African colonies. (especially Ivory Coast, Gabon, Senegal, and Cameroon under the first president which was a good president not like Biya today). African people from former French countries didn´t need a visa to travel to France (in some countries this was the case till 1995!!!!).

The key countries where France was heavily involved (not just physically) were stable till the 90´s and in some cases this is still the case for countries such as Senegal which has never known a single coup d´état since independence.

people form French-speaking african countries needn´t bother about inflation, their currency has always been strong and stable, there are many well-established instruments of fiscal discipline. Having low inflation in CFA countries has been the norm as opposed to the rest of Africa where you had double and in some cases triple or even worse inflation figures like Zimbabwe. Their Monetary Union is an example to follow for the rst of africa (free flow of goods, a lot - but still expandable - hamrmonisation between CFA countries, regular meetings etc.)



You mentioned Ghana, Ghana was a very hopeless country in the 70´s and 80´s while Ivory Coast prospered and grew arrogant and become No.3 in Africa or No.2 (if you take out SA which was still under apartheid rule). (you should have visited Ivory Coast twenty years back, it was really beautiful, ask any Ivorian guy he will talk about the "good old times")

Refering to Southern Africa: And take out South Africa, SA has a special role within Africa.

Ok, you had Zimbabwe but what else?

Don´t tell me Namibia, please!

Anyway, all colonizers were bad but I prefer a French or Portuguse colonies over the British because at least the latter didn´t invent a mad system like apartheid.... that´s why the relations between whites and blacks in francophone or lusophone Africa is more "relaxed". Seeing mixed race couples in Ivory Coast was the norm and not the exception. My father who is Nigerian and travelled a lot in French-speaking Africa when we lived in Ivory coast always remarked this and he was not the only one to do so.

I think one thing that the French failed to do in their former colonies as opposed to the Brits is that paternalist and "Big Daddy" policy.

Maybe this has helped Ghana in some way (STANDING bad weather ALONE !!!) in the long term as opposed to Ivory Coast, for example.
Since when is protection and subsidies a good economic system? It stifles competition and generally keeps services and products to a much lower standard. The Brits kept a clear division between their colonies and Britain while the French wanted to make all those living within the colonies culturally "french".

If you were to do a head to head match up comparing English Colonies globally to those ruled by the French, the Tommys would win. lol

They might have had low inflation, but that can stem from various factors. Such has very little consumer demand and domestic driven growth.

Ivory Coast was indeed the pearl of Africa, but they ended up in civil war, which reminds me of another french colony known as the "Paris of the Middle East". Lebanon.

Again comparing the wealthier Sub-Saharan nations most are former English colonies.

The Portuguese? LOL!! They were just as bad as the Spanish the only difference was that their time at the top was a lot shorter. The only thing the Portuguese were efficient at was transporting slaves from Angola. Otherwise they were just as backward as the Spanish, raping and pillaging and then getting itself bankrupt despite all the riches. Give me the imperialistic Brits over the Iberian conquistadores any day of the week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,873 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Since when is protection and subsidies a good economic system? It stifles competition and generally keeps services and products to a much lower standard. The Brits kept a clear division between their colonies and Britain while the French wanted to make all those living within the colonies culturally "french".
Are you aware that in French colonies, African people had French nationality (just like it is the case for the people of Reunion, French West Indies, New Caledonia etc. today) whereas in British or other colonies there was a strict formal distinction between Brits, Portuguese and the indigenous African people. Nigerians were not British citizens under colonial rule.


If you were to do a head to head match up comparing English Colonies globally to those ruled by the French, the Tommys would win. lol
Which ones, please? Give me one concrete example IN AFRICA don´t tell me Asia or USA or Autralia, please!!!

And not SA it was never a formal colonial in its status.

They might have had low inflation, but that can stem from various factors. Such has very little consumer demand and domestic driven growth.
Really, then you should have lived in the Ivory Coast in the past. Consumer demand was far higher than it was the case for Ghana today. Even today the consumer range is bettre than in Accra. Boy, we are talking of the third largest economy in Africa (built without oil!!!), barely from scratch. in a time between 1960-1985, this was unequalled in Africa 8part from post-colonial nigeria which had oil or Zimbabwe which was fairly developped under Rhodesian rule already)!!!!

Ivory Coast was indeed the pearl of Africa, but they ended up in civil war, which reminds me of another french colony known as the "Paris of the Middle East". Lebanon.
You are hilarious, what has Lebanon´s downfall got to do with French colony?:lol:

Yes, look at former British Burma, today ruled by military psychopaths.

or just look at Africa, Zimbabwe once a relatively prosperous nation, today it is mad-house.

And civil war in Ivory Coast? The effects were marginal, to be honest with you. Although I don´t like the president, one has to say that Ivory coast still enjoys 24h electricity, it has the second largest port in Sub-Saharan africa which presently undergoes a further expansion good and relatively desnse network - although partly pot -holed - of roads and more highways than Ghana.

Unfortunately the country had bad luck the past years, if this hadn´t happened which can happen in any country in Africa (just look at Kenya, a former British colony, btw) and beyond Africa.

It was not a war, it was a political crisis which is showing signy of being FINALLY SOLVED. It would have ended in war most likely., if foreign intervention hadn´t prevented the country from going to the dogs and a strong curreny helped it from ending up like Zimbabwe. The worst has been averted!!!

It is quite funny if you read Ghana newspaper it is a revolution for them if inflation hit 9%, people in any francophone country would revolt day in day out if inflation peaked 9% or 10%!!

BELIEVE ME IVORY COAST NEEDS A FAIR AND FREE ELECTION AND THE COUNTRY WILL RECLAIM ITS POSITION IN AFRICA MUCH FASTER THAN IT WILL BE THE CASE FOR A ZIMBABWE FREED FROM MUGABE!:)



Again comparing the wealthier Sub-Saharan nations most are former English colonies.
Be concrete , which ones are you refering to???? Leave out SA (no colony), leave out Namibia (which was german colony).

If you looked at older figures, you will see that former french colonies excelled much much better than their Englsih counterparts.
The Portuguese? LOL!! They were just as bad as the Spanish the only difference was that their time at the top was a lot shorter. The only thing the Portuguese were efficient at was transporting slaves from Angola. Otherwise they were just as backward as the Spanish, raping and pillaging and then getting itself bankrupt despite all the riches. Give me the imperialistic Brits over the Iberian conquistadores any day of the week.
you know nothing about history. Didn´t the Brits nd French exported slaves, too, which was even done with the consent of African people, people that got rich through slave trade on both sides??? horrible part of history and devilish side of human nature.

As for Angola, just look at old videos and pictures, there are many on the net and you will change your opinion. Read all skyblogs or chate with people that lived there, you speak Portuguese so it will be even easier for you...Then Look at old pictures of former British colonies like Ghana and Nigeria and you will start to hate the Brits. They build virtually nothing. It was them that pillaged and didn´t even give back a single kilometre of tarred road. Do you know that Oman just had ten kilometres of tarred road at time of independence? Now the Brits are queuing up to escape Britain to look for greener pastures in the booming Gulf , a region that they once pillaged at will without giving back any roads, nor hospitals to the people. NOTHING AND NADA!

And you just have to compare the horrible social system of Britain and their terrible public infrastructure with that of France to know which nation is worth living in?

France is the most visited country in the world with more than 74 million tourists and not Britain.

Do you get inventions like Airbus, TGV train in Britain?

Industry no longer plays a role in Britain and we all know how fragile countries are that don´t have industry (take the banking crisis now)

Not to forget the terrible British food, the nasty weather and their disgusting taste for anything that surrounds the word "style/fashion" etc.
Horrible no wonder that French people poke fun at British people.:lol:
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top