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 9387 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9424 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9516 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9560 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9516 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9574 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9474 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9601 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9349 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9511 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8896 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9511 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9349 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9601 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9474 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9424 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.