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 12057 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12234 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12324 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12403 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12324 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12301 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12267 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12390 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12122 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12181 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11606 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12181 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12122 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12390 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12267 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12234 times)

