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 11045 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11072 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11175 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11263 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11175 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11200 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11156 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11303 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11014 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11154 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10548 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11154 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11014 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11303 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11156 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11072 times)

