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 13178 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13282 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13351 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13282 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13254 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13197 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13343 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13050 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13061 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12522 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13061 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13050 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13343 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13197 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13178 times)

