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 8865 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8952 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 8987 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 8952 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9094 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8994 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8984 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8723 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8878 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8285 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 8878 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 8723 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 8984 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 8994 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 8865 times)