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 8867 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8955 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 8990 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8955 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9096 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8998 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8987 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8726 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8882 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8289 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8882 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8726 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8987 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8998 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8867 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.