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 11335 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11389 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11514 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11610 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11514 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11517 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11464 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11630 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11341 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11450 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10853 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11450 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11341 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11630 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11464 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11389 times)

