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 11609 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11733 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11805 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11918 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11805 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11803 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11784 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11919 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11654 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11734 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11146 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11734 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11654 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11919 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11784 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11733 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.

