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 9879 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9915 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10006 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10078 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10006 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10063 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9954 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10105 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9840 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9998 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9384 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9998 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9840 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10105 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9954 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9915 times)