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 6736 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6698 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6802 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 6824 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6802 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 6889 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6821 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6788 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6627 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6734 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 6276 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6734 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6627 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6788 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6821 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6698 times)