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 9921 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9959 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10056 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10147 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10056 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10110 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10008 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10156 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9898 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10054 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9431 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10054 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9898 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10156 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10008 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9959 times)