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 8893 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8866 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8954 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 8988 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8954 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9095 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8997 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8986 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8725 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8880 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8287 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8880 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8725 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8986 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8997 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8866 times)