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 8899 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8902 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8977 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9031 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8977 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9122 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9029 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9027 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8754 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8903 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8345 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8903 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8754 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9027 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9029 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8902 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.