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 12451 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12650 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12726 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12802 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12726 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12682 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12669 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12801 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12526 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12564 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11997 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12564 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12526 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12801 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12669 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12650 times)

