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 10633 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10687 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10794 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10863 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10794 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10822 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10764 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10900 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10621 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10758 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10154 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10758 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10621 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10900 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10764 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10687 times)