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 11334 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11386 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11508 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11605 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11508 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11514 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11461 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11624 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11335 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11446 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10848 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11446 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11335 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11624 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11461 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11386 times)

