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 6571 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6541 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6645 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 6659 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6645 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 6708 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6661 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6633 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6473 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6573 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 6134 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6573 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6473 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6633 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6661 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6541 times)