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 12341 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12529 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12612 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12681 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12612 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12555 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12543 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12670 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12396 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12447 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11869 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12447 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12396 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12670 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12543 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12529 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.

