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 11048 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11095 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11203 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 11287 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 11203 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 11226 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11180 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11330 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11037 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11169 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 10559 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 11169 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 11037 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 11330 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 11180 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 11095 times)

