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 10402 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10443 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10554 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10619 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10554 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10607 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10505 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10658 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10370 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10528 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9911 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10528 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10370 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10658 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10505 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10443 times)