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 10633 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10691 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10799 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10866 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10799 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10825 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10767 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10901 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10623 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10760 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10155 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10760 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10623 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10901 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10767 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10691 times)