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 11046 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11080 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11184 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11271 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11184 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11208 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11162 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11310 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11023 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11160 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10551 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11160 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11023 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11310 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11162 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11080 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.

