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 12967 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13163 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13266 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13332 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13266 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13239 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13182 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13327 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13039 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13050 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12511 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13050 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13039 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13327 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13182 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13163 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.

