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 12450 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12641 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12713 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12795 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12713 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12677 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12662 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12796 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12520 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12557 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11988 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12557 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12520 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12796 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12662 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12641 times)

