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 6649 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6606 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6704 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 6731 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6704 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 6773 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6733 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6706 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6542 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6647 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 6193 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6647 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6542 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6706 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6733 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6606 times)