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 10458 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10499 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10616 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10680 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10616 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10659 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10572 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10732 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10438 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10592 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9975 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10592 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10438 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10732 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10572 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10499 times)