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 10218 times, 11 posts in thread)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10280 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10393 times)
- I'd vote green. - blue_job 6/7 12:42 (read 10469 times)
- You're not keen on referendum results are you? - Gramsci. 6/7 12:17 (read 10393 times)
- It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:16 (read 10434 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10330 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10495 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10205 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10359 times)
- Cheers - nomad 5/7 17:08 (read 9747 times)
- Re: Referendum? - Gramsci. 5/7 16:56 (read 10359 times)
- Referendum? - nomad 5/7 16:55 (read 10205 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - Gramsci. 5/7 16:53 (read 10495 times)
- Re: It doesn't get discussed much - nomad 5/7 16:48 (read 10330 times)
- Re: Question for Gramsci - RsFH 6/7 10:05 (read 10280 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.