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 12054 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12225 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12311 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12389 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12311 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12288 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12257 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12374 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12112 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12174 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11598 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12174 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12112 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12374 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12257 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12225 times)

