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 13096 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13316 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13418 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13479 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13418 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13377 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13333 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13474 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13185 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13215 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12662 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13215 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13185 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13474 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13333 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13316 times)

