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 10213 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10272 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10384 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10461 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10384 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10424 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10321 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10482 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10194 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10345 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9730 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10345 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10194 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10482 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10321 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10272 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.