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 8883 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8968 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9005 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8968 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9116 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9019 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9009 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8739 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8888 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8299 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8888 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8739 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9009 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9019 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8883 times)