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 12635 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12709 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12791 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12709 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12670 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12656 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12789 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12515 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12553 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11981 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12553 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12515 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12789 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12656 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12635 times)

