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 10205 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10254 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10364 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10439 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10364 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10403 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10301 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10462 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10178 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10331 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9722 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10331 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10178 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10462 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10301 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10254 times)