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 8862 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8948 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 8985 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8948 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9092 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8990 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8981 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8720 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8876 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8284 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8876 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8720 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8981 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8990 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8862 times)