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 13176 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13281 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13350 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13281 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13253 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13196 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13341 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13047 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13059 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12519 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13059 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13047 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13341 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13196 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13176 times)

