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 10649 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10711 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10829 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10889 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10829 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10848 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10787 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10927 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10648 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10787 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10177 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10787 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10648 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10927 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10787 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10711 times)