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 12451 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12655 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12734 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12807 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12734 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12688 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12674 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12806 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12531 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12569 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 12003 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12569 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12531 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12806 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12674 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12655 times)
Post Your Reply
You must log in to reply to posts. Use the log in form at the top of the page or click here to create an account.

