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 10636 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10697 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10808 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10874 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10808 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10834 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10776 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10910 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10632 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10767 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10162 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10767 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10632 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10910 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10776 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10697 times)