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 11335 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11389 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11512 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11608 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11512 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11517 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11464 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11626 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11340 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11450 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10852 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11450 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11340 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11626 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11464 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11389 times)

