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 11334 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11378 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11501 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11599 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11501 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11507 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11454 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11620 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11327 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11438 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10843 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11438 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11327 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11620 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11454 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11378 times)

