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 12638 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12712 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 12793 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 12712 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 12674 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12661 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12794 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12517 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12555 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 11984 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 12555 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 12517 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 12794 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 12661 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 12638 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.

