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 10633 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10694 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10802 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10871 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10802 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10830 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10770 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10904 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10626 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10763 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10159 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10763 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10626 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10904 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10770 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10694 times)