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 9591 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9642 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9751 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9827 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9751 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9817 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9697 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9830 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9590 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9730 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9125 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9730 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9590 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9830 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9697 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9642 times)