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 9336 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9374 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9476 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9511 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9476 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9544 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9436 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9542 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9290 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9455 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8853 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9455 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9290 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9542 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9436 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9374 times)