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 12059 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12242 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12328 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12405 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12328 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12304 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12271 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12397 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12130 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12190 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11614 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12190 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12130 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12397 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12271 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12242 times)

