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 12395 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 12290 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12258 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12378 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12115 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12174 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11600 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12174 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12115 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 12258 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.

