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 9607 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9654 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9761 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9844 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9761 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9824 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9710 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9846 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9603 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9754 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9137 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9754 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9603 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9846 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9710 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9654 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.