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 8898 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8891 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8975 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9012 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8975 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9119 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9026 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9024 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8751 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8892 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8309 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8892 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8751 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9024 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9026 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8891 times)