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 9332 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9367 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9459 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 9496 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 9459 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 9533 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9418 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9529 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9273 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9445 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 8841 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 9445 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 9273 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 9529 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 9418 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 9367 times)