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 11172 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11261 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11172 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11199 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11154 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 11153 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10546 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11153 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 11154 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11072 times)

