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 11571 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11673 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11762 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11869 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11762 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11760 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11727 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11865 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11605 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11697 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11107 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11697 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11605 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11865 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11727 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11673 times)

