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 6741 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6702 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6808 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 6827 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6808 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 6892 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6823 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6791 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6630 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6737 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 6280 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6737 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6630 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6791 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6823 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6702 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.