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 12340 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12528 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12612 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12681 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12612 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12555 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12542 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12668 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12396 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12446 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11868 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12446 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12396 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12668 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12542 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12528 times)

