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 11609 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11734 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11806 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11921 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11806 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11808 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11789 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11923 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11655 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11736 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11147 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11736 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11655 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11923 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11789 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11734 times)

