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 11046 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11081 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11187 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11273 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11187 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11209 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11163 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11310 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11023 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11160 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10552 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11160 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11023 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11310 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11163 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11081 times)

