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 8878 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8964 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 8999 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8964 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9103 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9007 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8998 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8735 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8886 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8294 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8886 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8735 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8998 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9007 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8878 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.