Peckris 2

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 Article 50 has been invoked - although it can be withdrawn, only we can do that, the EU can't do it or insist we remain.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.

1. How is it a good thing to make a future that's more likely than not to be worse than where we are now? There is no "clean break", why do you think there is so much chaos right now which will only get worse? I agree that May's deal is pretty piss poor - that's one thing that Brexiters and Remainers can agree on. 2. "Will of the people". I could write 2000 words on what's wrong with that, but it's bedtime. 3. Colbyn - you meant Corbyn? He's not even as far left as Benn, who was - let's not forget - in Government in the 60s. His main problem is that he's been a back bench rebel for so long, he doesn't really know how to lead a party. His core values are pretty sound and appeal to masses of young people pissed off with politicians in general. Corbyn would have made an ideal #2.

The problem there is that if both binary choices leave us worse off than we are now - and that's the case - it;s not unreasonable to include an option where we abandon the idea altogether. In any case, a new referendum should be properly legislated : EITHER it should be "advisory" (as the 2015 Act stated) OR it should require a clear majority, e.g. at least 55% for one choice, or that over 50% of the electorate - not just those who voted - should indicate a particular preference. And anyone who lies during the campaign - ON EITHER SIDE - should be held liable to criminal prosecution. Also, bear in mind that we now know much more than we did in June 2016, such as the customs union, 'just in time' manufacture, the need for perishables to pass quickly between neighbouring countries, the impact on medicines, the nature of WTO trade and how we will be treated, other options such as Norway (championed by Farage before the referendum) and EFTA and the EEA, and most important of all the role of the Irish border. People who voted again would be much better informed. Of course, genuine Europhobes won't change their minds, but others may well do.

Gorgeous!

And there was I, a Latin scholar and a pedant, thinking I was being clever!! It's a common misconception that we don't have a constitution, but we have many bits and pieces of one, starting with the Magna Carta, going down through the ages to the Bill and Claim of Rights, and so on. What those judges (dubbed 'The Enemies Of The People' by that "august organ" the Mail, qua The Nazis in the 1930s) ruled on in early 2017, was that Parliament had a constitutional right to have a say throughout the Brexit process.

I would have recommended Picasa, but even that's gone the way of all flesh.

1. 52:48 is far too close to apply to a permanent constitutional change - but Cameron was either too stupid, too party political, or too in thrall to the `Euroseptics to apply the normal requirements for referenda. They are NOT general Elections which only apply for a maximum 5 years. 2. An EU judge has ruled that Article 50 is reversible and will cancel Brexit, provided it's not done for flippant, temporary or 'advantage in trade talks' reasons.

MP. Enough said...

I'm not sure it's a safe assumption that all images were changed in one fell swoop. My hunch is that they were changed piecemeal for maybe different reasons.

In the early 90s it was still Seaby's. When was the changeover to Spink in the 90s, and did they change all the illustrations then or keep the existing Seaby ones for a few editions?

Do we need moderating? Oops, we didn't...

Trouble is, it never reaches Christmas - there's no stable version...

That's quite a pale example Mike - I believe mine may be more typical? More like the MT 1940s pennies, in other words.

Yes, he may have taken that from Freeman?

Yes, I think that's a Freeman slip-up. Most of the 1935s I've ever seen are lustred, in fact I can barely recall seeing a hypo example.

[Adopts tone of voice of the railway bore you dread sitting next to you...] Ah well you see, it's quite easy to tell. I can see from the riffle squod mark that the bullet was made in the North Croydon Works of the Machine Arms Co and they only made them with that particular riffle squod up to 17th August 1914 and the entire consignment apart from one case was used before November 1914 in the Belgian trenches on the Western Front - the one case was used in 1915 but only at Gallipoli so if I was a betting man I'd feel my money was safe in saying that is a 1914 bullet. As I was saying to my friend Roger only last Tuesday - and there's no-one knows more than Roger about riffle... [cont p.94]