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 11072 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11119 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11236 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11317 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11236 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11252 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11205 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11356 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11067 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11199 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10588 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11199 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11067 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11356 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11205 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11119 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.

