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 11336 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11394 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11517 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11616 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11517 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11525 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11474 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11637 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11348 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11458 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10858 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11458 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11348 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11637 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11474 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11394 times)

