Activism Discussion: Can INdirect "representative" Democracy Be Reformed?

Can INdirect "representative" Democracy Be Reformed?
Posts: 13

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

I&R ~ GB
2009-11-27 09:35:35 EST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_an_expe.html

Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of
representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or follow
those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where policy is
dictated by popular opinion via, for example, referendums)."

Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"!
Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes
citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which may
be used to veto actions of government or parliament.

Adding elements of direct democracy to indirect (representative)
democracy brings creative input from the electorate into the political
process, as well as stronger "checks" on government. This is not
dictatorship so it is incorrect to imply that. Also, the procedures of
direct democracy allow, indeed demand, much public debate and
deliberation of issues. So these procedures differ greatly from opinion
surveys, which invite an instant and often ill-considered response.

Design of this deliberative citizen-led democracy is sketched here
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html
more detail via http://www.iniref.org/

IandRgb

http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm strategies for real democracy

Soupdragon
2009-11-27 11:11:36 EST
I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_an
> _expe.html
>
> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of
> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or
> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where
> policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, referendums)."
>
> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"!
> Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes
> citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which
> may be used to veto actions of government or parliament.

You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will deal
with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a few-citizens-
with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'.

Robert Peffers
2009-11-29 02:59:36 EST

"soupdragon" <me@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD0A4BCC2484darevtnn@62.141.42.83...
> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
> news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_an
>> _expe.html
>>
>> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of
>> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or
>> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where
>> policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, referendums)."
>>
>> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"!
>> Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes
>> citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which
>> may be used to veto actions of government or parliament.
>
> You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will deal
> with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a
> few-citizens-
> with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'.
Silly me. I thought that the campaign led by a few-citizens-with-an-agenda
was exactly what the posts in this group was all about, (or is that another
agenda)?
--

Auld Bob




I&R ~ GB
2009-11-29 16:55:17 EST
soupdragon wrote:
> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
> news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_an
>> _expe.html
>>
>> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of
>> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or
>> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where
>> policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, referendums)."
>>
>> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"!
>> Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes
>> citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which
>> may be used to veto actions of government or parliament.
>
> You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will deal
> with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a few-citizens-
> with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'.

We have replied to this your error along the lines of:

That you soupdragon wrote: "So before I want to hand over power to a
determined minority ..."

shows that you have NO IDEA about how modern direct democracy works. You
appear to refer to rights which could only be legislated upon centrally.
With citizen-initiated referendum any person, group or organisation can
put forward a proposal. A large, agreed number of citizens must be found
to endorse the proposal. Only then (most bad or extreme proposals fail
at this first hurdle) can it go forward to the next stage which in the
system recommended by I&R ~ GB means that the proposal must be debated
in Parliament. All of the latter steps are accompanied by free news
reporting, public information and debate. Proposals which contravene
constitution, international agreements, common sense or humanity can be
challenged in the courts. If Parliament rejects the proposal then the
proposing group may demand a referendum. In order to do that they must
collect a further large number of endorsements. Again the procedure
occurs under public and professional scrutiny, aired in the mass media,
widely debated. So a decision made by referendum will have been
substantially deliberated, turned inside out, considered. Much more so
than the average or even above average debate about a parliamentary bill
(except perhaps an attempt to regulate MPs' expenses).

So, it is THE ELECTORATE WHO DECIDES on issues which they select, not
your bogey-dragon "determined minority"."

I&R ~ GB
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm election campaign call
http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html web site index

Soupdragon
2009-11-30 05:22:30 EST
I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
news:7ng8mlF3kj2j6U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:

> soupdragon wrote:
>> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
>> news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_
>>> an _expe.html
>>>
>>> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of
>>> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or
>>> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where
>>> policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example,
>>> referendums)."
>>>
>>> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"!
>>> Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes
>>> citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which
>>> may be used to veto actions of government or parliament.
>>
>> You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will
>> deal with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a
>> few-citizens- with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'.
>
> We have replied to this your error along the lines of:

You seem to be confusing 'glaring deficiency' on your part, with
'error'.

> That you soupdragon wrote: "So before I want to hand over power to a
> determined minority ..."
>
> shows that you have NO IDEA about how modern direct democracy works.

There is nothing 'modern' about this idea - it's over 2000 years old,
nor does any of what you wrote below address the points I made. It
is nothing more than empty rhetoric - short on detail, long on wind.

> You appear to refer to rights which could only be legislated upon
> centrally.

I refer to rights which *must* be in place to protect minority and
other interests before we hand government over to mob rule and "Daily
Mail led citizens initiatives".

> With citizen-initiated referendum any person, group or
> organisation can put forward a proposal. A large, agreed number of
> citizens must be found
> to endorse the proposal.

How many? Vague as usual.

> Only then (most bad or extreme proposals
> fail
> at this first hurdle)

How do you know this when you haven't set a limit?

> can it go forward to the next stage which in the
> system recommended by I&R ~ GB means that the proposal must be debated
> in Parliament.

To what end? If they don't back it, it goes ahead anyway so what's the
point?

> All of the latter steps are accompanied by free news
> reporting, public information and debate. Proposals which contravene
> constitution, international agreements, common sense or humanity can
> be challenged in the courts. If Parliament rejects the proposal then
> the proposing group may demand a referendum. In order to do that they
> must collect a further large number of endorsements. Again the
> procedure occurs under public and professional scrutiny, aired in the
> mass media, widely debated. So a decision made by referendum will have
> been substantially deliberated, turned inside out, considered. Much
> more so than the average or even above average debate about a
> parliamentary bill (except perhaps an attempt to regulate MPs'
> expenses).

Zzzz! 'Large number' but no number mentioned. No mentioned of neccessary
mandate at the referendume, etc etc.

>
> So, it is THE ELECTORATE WHO DECIDES on issues which they select, not
> your bogey-dragon "determined minority"."

You really don't get this, do you? Yesterday, it was announced that
the far-right sponsored bill to stir up anti-Muslim hatred in
Switzerland got their way with a 'modern direct democracy' plebicite -
with a mere 29% of the electorate. All they needed was 100,000
signatures - a pitance. And all this despite the fact that polls in the
run up to the plebicite showed consistently 2 to 1 against the proposal.

There is your determined minority in action. That is the reality of what
you will bring without mechanisms in place to protect the rights of the
minority and to ensure any policy imposed on the electorate does indeed
have a mandate from the electorate and not, as appears to have been the
case in Switzerland, mob rule fuelled by Daily Mail style headlines
posing as 'public debate'.

[followups set]

I&R ~ GB
2009-11-30 10:50:17 EST
soupdragon wrote:
> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
> news:7ng8mlF3kj2j6U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
>
>> soupdragon wrote:
>>> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
>>> news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
>>>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_
>>>> an _expe.html
>>>>
>>>> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of
>>>> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or
>>>> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where
>>>> policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example,
>>>> referendums)."
>>>>
>>>> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"!
>>>> Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes
>>>> citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which
>>>> may be used to veto actions of government or parliament.
>>> You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will
>>> deal with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a
>>> few-citizens- with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'.
>> We have replied to this your error along the lines of:
>
> You seem to be confusing 'glaring deficiency' on your part, with
> 'error'.
>
>> That you soupdragon wrote: "So before I want to hand over power to a
>> determined minority ..."
>>
>> shows that you have NO IDEA about how modern direct democracy works.
>
> There is nothing 'modern' about this idea - it's over 2000 years old,
> nor does any of what you wrote below address the points I made. It
> is nothing more than empty rhetoric - short on detail, long on wind.
>
>> You appear to refer to rights which could only be legislated upon
>> centrally.
>
> I refer to rights which *must* be in place to protect minority and
> other interests before we hand government over to mob rule and "Daily
> Mail led citizens initiatives".
>
>> With citizen-initiated referendum any person, group or
>> organisation can put forward a proposal. A large, agreed number of
>> citizens must be found
>> to endorse the proposal.
>
> How many? Vague as usual.
>
>> Only then (most bad or extreme proposals
>> fail
>> at this first hurdle)
>
> How do you know this when you haven't set a limit?
>
>> can it go forward to the next stage which in the
>> system recommended by I&R ~ GB means that the proposal must be debated
>> in Parliament.
>
> To what end? If they don't back it, it goes ahead anyway so what's the
> point?
>
>> All of the latter steps are accompanied by free news
>> reporting, public information and debate. Proposals which contravene
>> constitution, international agreements, common sense or humanity can
>> be challenged in the courts. If Parliament rejects the proposal then
>> the proposing group may demand a referendum. In order to do that they
>> must collect a further large number of endorsements. Again the
>> procedure occurs under public and professional scrutiny, aired in the
>> mass media, widely debated. So a decision made by referendum will have
>> been substantially deliberated, turned inside out, considered. Much
>> more so than the average or even above average debate about a
>> parliamentary bill (except perhaps an attempt to regulate MPs'
>> expenses).
>
> Zzzz! 'Large number' but no number mentioned. No mentioned of neccessary
> mandate at the referendume, etc etc.
>
>> So, it is THE ELECTORATE WHO DECIDES on issues which they select, not
>> your bogey-dragon "determined minority"."
>
> You really don't get this, do you? Yesterday, it was announced that
> the far-right sponsored bill to stir up anti-Muslim hatred in
> Switzerland got their way with a 'modern direct democracy' plebicite -
> with a mere 29% of the electorate. All they needed was 100,000
> signatures - a pitance. And all this despite the fact that polls in the
> run up to the plebicite showed consistently 2 to 1 against the proposal.
>
> There is your determined minority in action. That is the reality of what
> you will bring without mechanisms in place to protect the rights of the
> minority and to ensure any policy imposed on the electorate does indeed
> have a mandate from the electorate and not, as appears to have been the
> case in Switzerland, mob rule fuelled by Daily Mail style headlines
> posing as 'public debate'.
>
> [followups set]

Much repetition by soupdragon.

About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by soupdragon.

Among an impressive collection of recommendations for reform of our
democracy and governance, the Power Inquiry put forward a proposal for
partial direct democracy (Report 2006, Recommendation 24). The proposal
had two stages, a citizens' initiative which if successful must be
debated in Parliament. To reach this stage it was suggested that 400,000
voter-endorsements (signatures) would be required. If Parliament rejects
the proposal, then the proposing group (plus others of like mind) could
push through a demand for plebiscite by collecting a further 400,000
endorsements. Additionally, as in other countries, Parliament would be
able to put forward an alternative proposal and both must be put to the
electorate for decision.

Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated publicly.

I&R ~ GB has made a start by launching a debate:
DEBATE DD:GB Proposals for the introduction of Elements of Direct
Democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Join in via
http://www.iniref.org/latest.html

This sort of democracy, citizen-led, is unpopular with politicians. In
oder to get elements of direct democracy introduced we need a focussed
campaign. Some campaign tactics for the coming election may be found
here http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm

I&R ~ GB



Soupdragon
2009-11-30 11:56:29 EST
I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
news:7ni7m7F3jp4veU1@mid.uni-berlin.de:

> soupdragon wrote:
>> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
>> news:7ng8mlF3kj2j6U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>> soupdragon wrote:
>>>> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
>>>> news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
>>>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_
>>>>> an _expe.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of
>>>>> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or
>>>>> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy
>>>>> (where policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example,
>>>>> referendums)."
>>>>>
>>>>> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly
>>>>> "misrepresented"! Modern direct democracy (in political science)
>>>>> always includes citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and
>>>>> a plebiscite which may be used to veto actions of government or
>>>>> parliament.
>>>> You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will
>>>> deal with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a
>>>> few-citizens- with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'.
>>> We have replied to this your error along the lines of:
>>
>> You seem to be confusing 'glaring deficiency' on your part, with
>> 'error'.
>>
>>> That you soupdragon wrote: "So before I want to hand over power to a
>>> determined minority ..."
>>>
>>> shows that you have NO IDEA about how modern direct democracy works.
>>
>> There is nothing 'modern' about this idea - it's over 2000 years old,
>> nor does any of what you wrote below address the points I made. It
>> is nothing more than empty rhetoric - short on detail, long on wind.
>>
>>> You appear to refer to rights which could only be legislated upon
>>> centrally.
>>
>> I refer to rights which *must* be in place to protect minority and
>> other interests before we hand government over to mob rule and "Daily
>> Mail led citizens initiatives".
>>
>>> With citizen-initiated referendum any person, group or
>>> organisation can put forward a proposal. A large, agreed number of
>>> citizens must be found
>>> to endorse the proposal.
>>
>> How many? Vague as usual.
>>
>>> Only then (most bad or extreme proposals
>>> fail
>>> at this first hurdle)
>>
>> How do you know this when you haven't set a limit?
>>
>>> can it go forward to the next stage which in the
>>> system recommended by I&R ~ GB means that the proposal must be
>>> debated in Parliament.
>>
>> To what end? If they don't back it, it goes ahead anyway so what's
>> the point?
>>
>>> All of the latter steps are accompanied by free news
>>> reporting, public information and debate. Proposals which contravene
>>> constitution, international agreements, common sense or humanity can
>>> be challenged in the courts. If Parliament rejects the proposal then
>>> the proposing group may demand a referendum. In order to do that
>>> they must collect a further large number of endorsements. Again the
>>> procedure occurs under public and professional scrutiny, aired in
>>> the mass media, widely debated. So a decision made by referendum
>>> will have been substantially deliberated, turned inside out,
>>> considered. Much more so than the average or even above average
>>> debate about a parliamentary bill (except perhaps an attempt to
>>> regulate MPs' expenses).
>>
>> Zzzz! 'Large number' but no number mentioned. No mentioned of
>> neccessary mandate at the referendume, etc etc.
>>
>>> So, it is THE ELECTORATE WHO DECIDES on issues which they select,
>>> not your bogey-dragon "determined minority"."
>>
>> You really don't get this, do you? Yesterday, it was announced that
>> the far-right sponsored bill to stir up anti-Muslim hatred in
>> Switzerland got their way with a 'modern direct democracy' plebicite
>> - with a mere 29% of the electorate. All they needed was 100,000
>> signatures - a pitance. And all this despite the fact that polls in
>> the run up to the plebicite showed consistently 2 to 1 against the
>> proposal.
>>
>> There is your determined minority in action. That is the reality of
>> what you will bring without mechanisms in place to protect the rights
>> of the minority and to ensure any policy imposed on the electorate
>> does indeed have a mandate from the electorate and not, as appears to
>> have been the case in Switzerland, mob rule fuelled by Daily Mail
>> style headlines posing as 'public debate'.
>>
>> [followups set]
>
> Much repetition by soupdragon.

Largely as a result of 'much failure' by you address any of the
pertinent points. I note you studiously bypass the glaring failure
of your 'direct democracy' yesterday in Switzerland. This was *not*
repetition, it was straight off the press news, yet you try to
dismiss it as repetition. I find that somewhat telling.

> About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by
> soupdragon.

I ask you about a mandate and you evade it and give us vague numbers
for starting the process and no requirement of voting return levels
at the plebescite, nothing on minimum turn out to validate it, or
minimum levels of victory to ensure an electorate mandate.

> [Finally some figures - minimum of 400,000 to get the process started]
>
> Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated
> publicly.

Something the public will find problematic given your habit of avoiding
uncomfortable questions regarding deficiencies in the sytem you propose.



I&R ~ GB
2009-11-30 13:02:33 EST
soupdragon wrote:
>
>> About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by
>> soupdragon.
>
> I ask you about a mandate and you evade it and give us vague numbers
> for starting the process and no requirement of voting return levels
> at the plebescite, nothing on minimum turn out to validate it, or
> minimum levels of victory to ensure an electorate mandate.
>
>> [Finally some figures - minimum of 400,000 to get the process started]
>>
>> Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated
>> publicly.
>

Well then, what is your assessment of the proposal, "About rules for
democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by soupdragon.

Among an impressive collection of recommendations for reform of our
democracy and governance, the Power Inquiry put forward a proposal for
partial direct democracy (Report 2006, Recommendation 24). The proposal
had two stages, a citizens' initiative which if successful must be
debated in Parliament. To reach this stage it was suggested that 400,000
voter-endorsements (signatures) would be required. If Parliament rejects
the proposal, then the proposing group (plus others of like mind) could
push through a demand for plebiscite by collecting a further 400,000
endorsements. Additionally, as in other countries, Parliament would be
able to put forward an alternative proposal and both must be put to the
electorate for decision.

Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated publicly.

I&R ~ GB has made a start by launching a debate:
DEBATE DD:GB Proposals for the introduction of Elements of Direct
Democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Join in via
http://www.iniref.org/latest.html

This sort of democracy, citizen-led, is unpopular with politicians. In
oder to get elements of direct democracy introduced we need a focussed
campaign. Some campaign tactics for the coming election may be found
here http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm" ?

Have you read the cited Power to the People report, at least
Recommendation 24? It's interesting. More about hurdles and thresholds
is at DEBATE DD:GB Proposals, url above.

I&R ~ GB

Soupdragon
2009-11-30 15:39:46 EST
I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:7nife7F3l69qqU1@mid.uni-
berlin.de:

> soupdragon wrote:
>>
>>> About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by
>>> soupdragon.
>>
>> I ask you about a mandate and you evade it and give us vague numbers
>> for starting the process and no requirement of voting return levels
>> at the plebescite, nothing on minimum turn out to validate it, or
>> minimum levels of victory to ensure an electorate mandate.
>>
>>> [Finally some figures - minimum of 400,000 to get the process
started]
>>>
>>> Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated
>>> publicly.
>>
>
> Well then, what is your assessment of the proposal, "About rules for
> democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by soupdragon.

I already assessed it above but, typically, you simply ignored my
response and engaged in repetition. You do seem to be very reluctant
to address this mandate issue. Could it be you know realise all you'd
be doing is replacing a 'democratic deficit' with an 'electoral mandate
deficit'?

I&R ~ GB
2009-12-01 13:28:52 EST
soupdragon wrote:
> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:7nife7F3l69qqU1@mid.uni-
> berlin.de:
>
>> soupdragon wrote:
>>>> About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by
>>>> soupdragon.
>>> I ask you about a mandate and you evade it and give us vague numbers
>>> for starting the process and no requirement of voting return levels
>>> at the plebescite, nothing on minimum turn out to validate it, or
>>> minimum levels of victory to ensure an electorate mandate.
>>>
>>>> [Finally some figures - minimum of 400,000 to get the process
> started]
>>>> Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated
>>>> publicly.
>> Well then, what is your assessment of the proposal, "About rules for
>> democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by soupdragon.
>
> I already assessed it above but, typically, you simply ignored my
> response and engaged in repetition. You do seem to be very reluctant
> to address this mandate issue. Could it be you know realise all you'd
> be doing is replacing a 'democratic deficit' with an 'electoral mandate
> deficit'?

This thread was introduced with "Adding elements of direct democracy to
indirect (representative) democracy brings creative input from the
electorate into the political process, as well as stronger "checks" on
government. This is not dictatorship so it is incorrect to imply that.
Also, the procedures of direct democracy allow, indeed demand, much
public debate and deliberation of issues. So these procedures differ
greatly from opinion surveys, which invite an instant and often
ill-considered response."

In partial direct democracy PDD as we propose it the People are in
charge of public affairs. Most work of running the country is done as
before but with PDD the electorate with plebiscite can mandate the
government to act in a certain way or mandate parliament to pass a law.
How all this works in practice can be discovered by browsing a few web
sites such as:
http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk/directdemocracyexamples/
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/
http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm election campaign call
http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html web site index
http://www.iniref.org/learn.html FREE materials

I&R ~ GB

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron