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 10636 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10704 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10815 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10877 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10815 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10835 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10779 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10916 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10639 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10777 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10171 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10777 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10639 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10916 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10779 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10704 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.