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 11608 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11723 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11790 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11907 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11790 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11791 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11771 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11909 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11645 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11728 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11139 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11728 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11645 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11909 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11771 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11723 times)

