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 8890 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8861 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8947 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 8982 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8947 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9089 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8989 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8979 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8718 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8871 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8281 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8871 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8718 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8979 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8989 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8861 times)