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 11534 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11636 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11734 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11834 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11734 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11731 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11693 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11836 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11576 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11666 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11075 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11666 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11576 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11836 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11693 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11636 times)

