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 11339 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11399 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11521 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11619 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11521 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 11477 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11640 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11351 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11463 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10867 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11463 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11351 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11640 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11477 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11399 times)

