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 10218 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10280 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10392 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10469 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10392 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10431 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10329 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10494 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10204 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10358 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9746 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10358 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10204 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10494 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10329 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10280 times)