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 9937 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9979 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10084 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10178 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10084 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10130 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10026 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10172 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9916 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10074 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9468 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10074 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9916 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10172 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10026 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9979 times)