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 13181 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13286 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13352 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13286 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13255 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13200 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13345 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13054 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13068 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12528 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13068 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13054 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13345 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13200 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13181 times)

