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 9337 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9375 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9476 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9512 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9476 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9549 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9440 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9553 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9296 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9458 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8854 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9458 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9296 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9553 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9440 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9375 times)