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 11391 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11516 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11614 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11516 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11522 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11470 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11634 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11344 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11454 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10856 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11454 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11344 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11634 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11470 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11391 times)

