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 11071 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11118 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11232 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11316 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11232 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11252 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11204 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11354 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11064 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11198 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10585 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11198 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11064 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11354 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11204 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11118 times)

