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 10636 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10700 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10812 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10874 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10812 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10835 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10778 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10915 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10638 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10773 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10166 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10773 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10638 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10915 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10778 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10700 times)