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 6749 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6714 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6812 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 6829 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 6812 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 6895 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6826 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6793 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6634 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6742 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 6282 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 6742 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 6634 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 6793 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 6826 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 6714 times)