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 8871 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8958 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 8993 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8958 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9097 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9000 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8989 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8729 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8883 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8290 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8883 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8729 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8989 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9000 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8871 times)