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 11074 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11121 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11243 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11323 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11243 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11259 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11212 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11364 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11073 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11203 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10595 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11203 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11073 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11364 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11212 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11121 times)

