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 9334 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9370 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9469 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9503 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9469 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9538 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9422 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9535 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9282 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9451 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8847 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9451 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9282 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9535 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9422 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9370 times)