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 10468 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10506 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10623 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10688 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10623 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10664 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10582 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10740 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10444 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10606 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9992 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10606 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10444 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10740 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10582 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10506 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.