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 10688 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10748 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10861 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10930 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10861 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10895 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10824 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10982 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10695 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10834 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10220 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10834 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10695 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10982 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10824 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10748 times)

