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 12450 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12632 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12705 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12787 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12705 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12666 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12651 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12780 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12512 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12550 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11979 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12550 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12512 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12780 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12651 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12632 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.

