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 13175 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13279 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13348 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13279 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13252 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13194 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13338 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13045 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13057 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12518 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13057 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13045 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13338 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13194 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13175 times)

