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 12971 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13165 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13271 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13337 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13271 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13240 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13182 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13329 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13040 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13053 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12512 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13053 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13040 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13329 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13182 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13165 times)

