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 10633 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10694 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10803 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10872 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10803 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10831 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10770 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10905 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10629 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10765 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10160 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10765 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10629 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10905 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10770 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10694 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.