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 12802 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13005 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13116 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13181 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13116 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13071 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13036 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13178 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12897 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12911 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12349 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12911 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12897 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13178 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13036 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13005 times)

