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 11049 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11098 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11213 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11296 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11213 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11232 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11185 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11334 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11041 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11174 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10563 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11174 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11041 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11334 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11185 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11098 times)

