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 9386 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9421 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9513 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9557 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9513 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9574 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9473 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9598 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9348 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9509 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8895 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9509 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9348 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9598 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9473 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9421 times)