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 12646 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12720 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12801 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12720 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12679 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12666 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12799 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12525 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12563 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11995 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12563 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12525 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12799 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12666 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12646 times)

