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 9341 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9375 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9479 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9515 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9479 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9549 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9443 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9554 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9299 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9462 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8855 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9462 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9299 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9554 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9443 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9375 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.