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 10651 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10716 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10836 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10898 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10836 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10861 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10794 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10934 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10657 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10798 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10186 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10798 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10657 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10934 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10794 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10716 times)