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 9960 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10059 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10151 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10059 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10113 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10011 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10158 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9900 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10056 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9434 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10056 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9900 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10158 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10011 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9960 times)