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 12451 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12654 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12732 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12807 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12732 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12688 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12674 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12805 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12529 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12566 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11999 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12566 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12529 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12805 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12674 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12654 times)

