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 12450 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12642 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12715 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12799 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12715 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12677 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12663 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12797 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12521 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12557 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11989 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12557 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12521 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12797 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12663 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12642 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.

