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 11046 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11087 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11192 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11275 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11192 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11212 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11164 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11315 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11029 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11164 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10556 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11164 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11029 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11315 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11164 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11087 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.

