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 11334 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11384 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11507 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11604 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11507 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11512 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11459 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11624 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11334 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11445 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10847 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11445 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11334 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11624 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11459 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11384 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.

