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 10651 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10717 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10836 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10900 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10836 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10863 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10794 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10934 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10658 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10799 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10187 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10799 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10658 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10934 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10794 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10717 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.