Peckris 2

I thought he shot himself in the nethers by - as usual - sticking to his script of prepared stuff instead of scoring into the open goals left by May. I don't know whether he considers it beneath his dignity (she has none left) or whether he's just clueless at PMQs repartee. Emily Thornberry is 1000% better at it than he is.

I note it's a "VIP" crown, rather than a VIP...

"I know absolutely nothing about coins, except to focus your attention on the (replica) Gothic crown, and the (fools') gold 1902"

I think it was strategically coined to avoid the term "second referendum", which is actually what it would be. However, for those who cry "foul" or "undemocratic" you could quite realistically say the first was a simple binary choice, "Leave" or "Remain"? There was no explanation of what this would actually involve, i.e. customs union, WTO rules, Irish borders, effect on businesses, and - today - the news that security forces were being put on alert to deal with the effect of a 'No deal'. Quite early on it was decided that Parliament must have the final say on any future relationship with the EU; now that we know that Parliament will reject May's deal, leaving a choice between No Deal or No Brexit, it makes sense for the people who voted in the first, to have a say on how things should go from here. Personally I blame the 1975 referendum, as it established it as an acceptable procedure to decide on Europe (but nothing else, unless you're Scottish).

Yes, definitely Roman, and definitely one of the Constan... group of emperors - not rare but fascinating, especially for a 10-yr-old.

The triple choice is how I've always seen it presented: 1. Accept May's deal, and leave the EU 2. Reject May's deal, and leave the EU with no deal 3. Reject May's deal, and Remain in the EU That's two options to leave and one to stay.

No. not Scotch mist, but not true ghosting either. There are so many examples of BU coins where you can see a faint outline in the lustre but as Mike says, it doesn't survive once the coin wears. The Mint obviously didn't care about 'lustre ghosting' - it was only when it carried deeper into the metal that it was seen as a real problem.

True ghosting is deeper than the lustre - you will still see it on quite worn George V pennies, where on that bun penny it won't survive the loss of lustre.

Hey, anyone can change in more than 40 years! Yes, this is the major problem with Labour - they have a leader who at heart is a Brexiter, while his party largely ain't. And whatever they do, short of a People's Vote on any deal (did you see the cheers for that on Question Time, which normally has a hand-picked pro-Brexit audience?), there is very little they can do, and no time left to do it. However, as you said above, the circle really cannot be squared.

Just for a moment there - having absent mindedly registered the "MS 64" - I thought it was an 1864 penny, in which case it would be the finest known and worth a small (or not so small) fortune!

What you say is unarguable, so I come round to the point "Why leave" if it's to be rule takers not makers? Much of what's good about EU rules are things we helped to formulate, so there's a very strong UK influence in there. I cannot see anything wrong with the four freedoms, and I'd add that the areas who were most concerned about immigration in 2016 are the areas where there was least immigration. Tail wagging the dog. I agree about many of Corbyn's acolytes (I have little time for Momentum). However, to call Corbyn a quasi Communist is well wide of the mark. He's probably not as left as Tony Benn was and he was in government until the mid 70s. What disappoints me though is that he shuffles around Brexit, secretly approving of it, but not daring to upset his MPs and membership who are largely Remainers (and possibly a majority of his voters by now). Only because the hate speech laws which we - rightly - have in Great Britain, don't seem to apply in N Ireland? I had to laugh though. Rees-Mogg cannot see the irony of not accepting the leadership vote of 2016 and having another one to see if he 'gets the right result this time'! I've been bordering on almost that view of late - the bad deal is nowhere near as bad as 'no deal' would be. It really does seem like an unsquareable circle. We live in "interesting times".

We need a 'mouth open, shocked' reaction icon!

Yes, that's what Paddy said it was !!

Interesting. I thought the opposite - the proof has some lovely toning. For 1887 the difference is colossal - the proofs would rate at thousands where you'd be lucky to get a couple of hundred for the currency, they're so common. Obviously the situation would be different for other sets - e.g. 1902 where the silver proofs would be no more than double the currency.

A customs union is no bad thing. During the referendum campaign it was never mentioned, indeed most non-trading people had probably never even heard of it. However, if we have left the Single Market, then A customs union (as envisaged by Labour) would still allow us to pursue our own trade deals, albeit perhaps not quite so freely as Jacob Rees-Mogg would like (see picture below..). A prolonged and open-ended CU is exactly what Ireland should have, and it's probably only the homophobic climate change-denying religious fundamentalists of the DUP who seriously object. Yes, it threatens the integrity of the UK Union perhaps, but that's only been around a relatively short time.

How very odd. And there was me thinking we voted to Leave rather than them pushing us out. Ah well. Must have been mistaken. (Pound to a 1933 penny that there are liberal Aussies who think nothing of the sort.)

That's a distortion of the actual real-world situation. NEITHER side wants the backstop to be invoked, as both sides want a good deal out of Brexit; if that happens it will include some kind of customs union which will preclude a border in Ireland. But IF - and I do mean if - that doesn't happen, then the EU has no alternative but to protect the interests of a member state (Eire) by invoking the backstop for as long as it's necessary. It's not about having the UK over a barrel, it's about not seeing Eire disadvantaged. If it was the other way about, and Eire was leaving and we were staying, don't you think the EU would do exactly the same thing, but this time in relation to our interests? The terms of the backstop are NOT about leaving the EU, they're about how long the backstop stays in place. Article 50 has been invoked - although it can be withdrawn, only we can do that, the EU can't do it or insist we remain. What the EU can do is to insist that the backstop cannot be unilaterally removed by the UK if it means a border in Ireland. That's why the DUP is so spooked - it could mean N Ireland remaining effectively in the EU unless or until a deal is reached that precludes a border.

That's brilliant!

That's a very strange one! If it's artificial lustre, then it's mostly worn away in a natural fashion. Which means - if it was artificially done - then the penny must have circulated after it was lustred. However, they ceased to be legal tender in 1971 and even by then, a 1900 penny wasn't worth very much. That begs the question, why bother? My own feeling is that the state of wear is VF but with considerable remaining (fairly convincing) lustre. So could this perhaps have been a weak strike and the lustre is original? One thing's for certain - UNC it ain't!!

Channel 4 News interviewed an economist on this, who said that leaving the Single Market and going WTO was the equivalent of going from the Premier League down to League Two in one season. I'm sorry Rob, but up until now I'd thought you argued coherently about Brexit, but what you say there is nonsense. There is no 'Brussels trough' except in the minds of Brexiters. Yes, there are "jobs for the boys" (usually ex-politicians) but that's hardly unique to the EU - it exists worldwide and we ordinary folk really don't like it, but it hardly represents more than a tiny fraction of what the EU is about. As for 'vassal state', that again is a Brexiter phrase that has no foundation in reality: we make our own laws, the one exception being EU regulations which are mostly to do with food agriculture and fisheries, standards for drugs and medicines, environmental matters, workers rights, etc. Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Spain (just for starters) would never submit to being vassals, so why do Brexiters arouse the passions of voters by using that phrase of a future Britain? And they accuse Remainers of 'Project Fear'!!!

The so-called backstop is absolutely essential. Any threat to the Good Friday Agreement is utterly unthinkable.

When I spoke of regional grants to the poorest areas, I wasn't speaking of member states, but regions within those states - Britain gets its fair share of handouts from the EU. Greece's troubles were precipitated by the worldwide crash in 2008.

The problem there is that the UK is hardly on the 'periphery' economically - we are the second largest economy after Germany; $2.6 trillion as opposed to Germany's $3.6 trillion (2017). Compare that with the less than $50 billion of Slovenia, Latvia, Malta, Estonia, Cyprus. Even Luxembourg, which admittedly is a tiny country, is barely more than $50 billion, and they're a founder member. The UK does better than France which is a bigger country, and don't forget we are smaller than Germany, 66m population compared to 83m. As for the common currency, we never joined that. I think you're right that member states are not going to vote for full political union - there is absolutely no way that Germans, French, Italians, Baltics, Spanish, etc, would give up their status as independent states. Personally, I believe the EU would break up before that would happen, or would revert to 'single market' status, or retain the existing status quo. At present there are checks and balances to ensure that EU economies don't go under. Greece had cripplingly severe austerity requirements imposed on them in order to stay afloat after 2008, but without the cash injection from the EU they would have gone bankrupt. And budget payments in are redistributed in the form of regional grants to the poorest areas. If the EU was so awful, then it's difficult to see why so many nations queue up to join. The only answer is because the single market is economically advantageous. Future trends will have to be faced by individual member states. Brexit - if it actually goes ahead - could be the biggest wake-up call the EU has ever had.