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 12967 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13162 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13265 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 13331 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 13265 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 13235 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13179 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13327 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13035 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13049 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12510 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 13049 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 13035 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 13327 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 13179 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 13162 times)

