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 10256 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10313 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10422 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10499 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10422 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10478 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10369 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10533 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10252 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10395 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9783 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10395 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10252 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10533 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10369 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10313 times)