posted on 5/7/2020 17:08Cheers - nomad
Sorry misunderstood, had completly forgotten about that, probably because it was pretty much a foregone conclusion at the time.
Personally think that it needs to be revisited, with a fairer explanation, no referendum, the last few years have been wearing, polarised and marginalised (arguably) parties that should have an input, greens etc.
Would be cool if Labour got behind it, no chance of tories doing so.
Personally think that it needs to be revisited, with a fairer explanation, no referendum, the last few years have been wearing, polarised and marginalised (arguably) parties that should have an input, greens etc.
Would be cool if Labour got behind it, no chance of tories doing so.
- Question for Gramsci - nomad 5/7 14:52 (read 8893 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8872 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8959 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 8995 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8959 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9098 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9001 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8989 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8730 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8885 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8291 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8885 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8730 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8989 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9001 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8872 times)
Post Your Reply
You must log in to reply to posts. Use the log in form at the top of the page or click here to create an account.