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 8898 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8891 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8976 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9016 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8976 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9120 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9027 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9025 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8753 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8896 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8315 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8896 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8753 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9025 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9027 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8891 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.