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 10211 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10268 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10377 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10452 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10377 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10415 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10313 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10476 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10189 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10338 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9724 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10338 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10189 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10476 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10313 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10268 times)