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 9893 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9930 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10024 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10095 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10024 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10084 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9974 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10121 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9849 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10009 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9389 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10009 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9849 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10121 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9974 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9930 times)