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 12638 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12712 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12792 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12712 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12672 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12659 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12792 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12516 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12555 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11983 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12555 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12516 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12792 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12659 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12638 times)

