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 12971 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13169 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13274 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13343 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13274 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13244 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13188 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13333 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13041 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13055 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12515 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13055 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13041 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13333 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13188 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13169 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.

