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 10268 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10320 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10428 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10503 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10428 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10486 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10375 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10549 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10259 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10413 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9793 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10413 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10259 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10549 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10375 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10320 times)