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 11046 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11079 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11183 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11271 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11183 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11208 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11162 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11310 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11022 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11157 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10550 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11157 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11022 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11310 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11162 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11079 times)

