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 11395 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11518 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11618 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11518 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11526 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 11459 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10859 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11459 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 11395 times)

