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 11334 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11382 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11502 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11601 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11502 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11509 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11458 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11621 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11328 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11442 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10846 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11442 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11328 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11621 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11458 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11382 times)

