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 12055 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12230 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12320 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12400 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12320 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12296 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12261 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12385 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12118 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12176 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11603 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12176 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12118 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12385 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12261 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12230 times)

