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 12055 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12228 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12316 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12398 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12316 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12291 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12259 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12378 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12116 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12174 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11601 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12174 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12116 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12378 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12259 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12228 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.

