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 11609 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11725 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11793 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11910 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11793 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11792 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11773 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11910 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11649 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11728 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11140 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11728 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11649 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11910 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11773 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11725 times)

