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 10449 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10481 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10609 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10668 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10609 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10654 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10557 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10712 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10421 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10583 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9960 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10583 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10421 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10712 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10557 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10481 times)