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 8880 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8966 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9000 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8966 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9105 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9010 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9002 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8737 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8887 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8295 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8887 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8737 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9002 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9010 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8880 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.