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 12450 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12633 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12706 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12788 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12706 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12669 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12654 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12784 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12514 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12551 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11980 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12551 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12514 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12784 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12654 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12633 times)

