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 6678 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6633 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6740 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 6764 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6740 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 6811 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6772 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6738 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6574 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6676 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 6226 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6676 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6574 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6738 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6772 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6633 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.