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 11074 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11123 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11245 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11323 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11245 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11260 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11213 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11365 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11074 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11207 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10598 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11207 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11074 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11365 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11213 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11123 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.

