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 11611 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11739 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11811 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11925 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11811 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11809 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11792 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11927 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11662 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11740 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11149 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11740 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11662 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11927 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11792 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11739 times)

