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 10633 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10691 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10800 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10867 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10800 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10826 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10768 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10902 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10625 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10762 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10156 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10762 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10625 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10902 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10768 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10691 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.