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 10212 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10270 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10381 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10455 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10381 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10423 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10320 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10480 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10191 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10339 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9725 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10339 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10191 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10480 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10320 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10270 times)