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 10213 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10274 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10386 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10462 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10386 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10425 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10324 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10484 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10198 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10348 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9733 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10348 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10198 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10484 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10324 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10274 times)