Rob

Nothing for Lordshill, April and November 1977 for Nordle

Thanks for the link to a good article. He is certainly right about the view that Europe is seen as a place to do business without any emotional attachment, but I'm not sure about it being a consolation prize following the loss of empire. This is a misconception frequently bandied about on the continent, but the truth is we have moved on and any ideas that we retain imperial ambition is anachronsitic. I'm approaching retirement age and have never known the British Empire. However, the obsession within Europe that Germany still needs to be contained is equally out of date, so perhaps both ideas emanate from the same time warp. I personally would love to see Germany re-establish a 'normal' relationship on equal terms to the other countries without having to check with the political correctness brigade before doing anything. It is quite interesting from our family perspective to see the UK/EU relationship. My wife is German, but thinks we would be better off outside the EU. She appreciates this country for its individuality and ability to think outside the straightjacket of German conformity . As she has often said - Hitler wouldn't have had a chance in this country because you are too bloody minded as individuals and refuse to conform to anything. Her sister however, thinks that we are the black sheep, because we don't conform and agrees with the principle of all decisions being made centrally without a vote. Our respective views are at odds with each other. Like many others I thoroughly enjoy going to the continent and taking advantage of the goodies to be found there, but that is leisure and holidays speaking. However, when it comes to a business or a political relationship, then you need not only a set of rules under which to operate, but also some mechanism to change them when required. That's less than 10 words to sum up the main failing of the EU in practical terms. And so we agree to differ with mainland Europe. For both sides of the referendum to fully engage with the things this country needs would be a good start.

Scott's reply has to be put in the context of what it is - a piece in a left of centre newspaper that is anti-Tory as a matter of principle. Nobody has ever said this will be easy. If Cameron didn't want the referendum, he shouldn't have allowed it in the manifesto. The simple fact is that a majority have chosen the politically incorrect option. As has been said before, the right outcome for the wrong reasons. Had the gross failings of the EU been highlighted, then they could also have been cited as a good reason for withdrawal. If the EU hadn't operated in the way it does, I could easily have voted in favour of it - except that I never had a chance to vote for it because votes are too democratic. It's time to cut out the squabbling and move on.

A second vote to satisfy the Remain camp has to be wrong in principle as it defeats the point of a referendum. You could have 16m odd signatories to a petition, but it doesn't mean that a single additional person wants another chance to win. We have made a decision and now have to live with it whether you were out or in. An EU sanctioned second referendum would also require the option of a third one or more until the 'correct' answer was obtained. Something I find most frustrating about the subsequent noise is that nobody would be complaining if the result had gone the other way. A sort of some votes are more equal than other votes scenario. TG's quote - And then there's Scotland. And Northern Ireland. And to a lesser extent Gibraltar, London and Birmingham. All with a majority Remain vote. implies that these are somehow more worthy than the voters in the parts of the country that voted leave. They had one man one vote just like everyone else, only their interests were different. It might come as a shock to Metro-man, but the country voted in a different direction to London BECAUSE they don't see the benefits of the EU as viewed from London, nor receive them. What is needed now is a framework to be laid down and the withdrawal conditions implemented. This is a country with broad minded and quite liberal attitudes (irrespective of those who see only racism and bigotry in the 'wrong' answer), so let's get on with life, looking forward, not backwards, and working for the common good (which is the norm) It's fair to say that Leave voters didn't really expect the vote to go their way because people are by and large conservative when it comes to constitutional or political change and the status quo wins more often than not. However, a failure of the UK to leave the EU having voted for it would be a betrayal of the electorate who voted for change and additionally would send the wrong message to the EU, the depressing implication being they are doing things right.

That is likely. Only the numbers are a matter for concern.

Ah, but you aren't obliged to contribute. I concur with the way forward. The opportunity to vote has been given and used by those who wanted to do so. Now the work starts.

I think too many people are trying to attach the racist tag to anything other than Remain. There are racists in all countries, but they are far exceeded by the average citizen who doesn't ask their political leaning before engaging in any form of discussion. I personally found the two months leading up to the referendum very depressing, with both sides campaigning negatively. I didn't once hear the Remain camp voice a positive reason for staying in. Lots of forecasts of Armageddon and the end of the world as we know it, be therein lies the rub - the world as we know it wasn't what a lot of people wanted. In all that time, the only balanced argument I found for remaining in the EU was this article, courtesy of my son which appeared in my inbox the day before voting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y The populist reason for Out was immigration, but that was really only the main factor in certain areas that have borne the full brunt of it. It is unreasonable to assume that a population going from 0 to 30% immigrants in the space of 15 years (as in the case of Boston and the surrounding area) not to result in some discomfort amongst the indigenous population. That doesn't make them automatic racists. Immigrants can be easily assimilated if the numbers are controlled, as indeed this country has a long history of doing. As I said a couple months ago, I think that immigration was a red herring for the most part as a reason for leaving. What I found more depressing was that the whole EU setup wasn't highlighted as a reason for leaving, but both ins and outs choose to ignore the fundamentally isolated juggernaut that is the Commission. A body detached from the opinions and influence of the electorate. I also find depressing the comments of some Europeans who have stated in emails that it is now even more important not to give people a democratic right to judge the EU as it is clear they may not give the correct answer. As I have said on more than one occasion, the far right and left are much closer to each other than they will ever be to the average man on the street, dedicated as they are to their own particular brand of intolerance. I believe the left and right arms of society converge at the point of suppression of free speech and thought. Vive la difference.

It wouldn't be worth £1000 even if genuine.

I quite agree, but society has determined that the age of maturity is 18 and that is where we are at the moment. You are not likely to improve the quality of decision making by reducing the voting age to include those at school, and personally I despair at some older sections of society, but they have their rights. There will never be a perfect solution and this one is likely to go round in circles. Blackadder's Pitt the Embryo springs to mind.

No, what I'm saying is that the average teenager couldn't care less about politics as a general issue. Until you go out into the wider world as an adult you are usually insulated from the day to day workings of society. To give children of school age a vote on a subject of such complexity as whether this country is better off within or outside the EU would not result in an informed decision, and would therefore not be responsible in my opinion. I'm sure you will always find the exception to the rule with a well read person of school age from early teens up, but equally am quite convinced that you will find many more who despite being given the right to vote at the age of 18, are clearly not up to the task of making an informed judgment. To reduce this age to 16 would only serve to increase the numbers of the latter group. Society in this country is hardly being unfair in saying that 18 is the age of maturity as the average 18 year old today will be around for the next 70 years or more when they will be able to cast their vote whether acting in an informed manner or not. And carrying on from the earlier comment by Scott et al, even 65 year olds can expect to live for another generation today. I've heard a lot of people complain about the old gits determining the futures of the 16 or 17 year olds who don't get to vote. The only people who will suffer unfairly under a voting system which denies you 2 additional years' opportunity to vote in every 70 are those whose opinions are sought only once every 73 years. The EU is the closest approximation the west has to such a system. One vote (not sanctioned by Brussels) every 41 years is hardly a ringing endorsement of democracy, but it is the best we have at the moment. Thank you Mr Cameron.

I think it is deluded to believe that people currently at school can have a broad enough interest in world and national affairs as a group to justify giving them the right to vote. The politicians supporting 16 or 17 years olds voting are doing so on a single issue basis. If you ask a 16 year old do you want to be part of an area with freedom to travel within it as they want, they will say yes every time. The number of youths with a healthy and functioning knowledge of their own political system, let alone the workings of one to which they have no direct and visible connection would not be conducive to informed decision making. The age of maturity is clearly flexible, but we must be careful not to confuse rights to self determination with an assumption that all people of any age are capable of rational or sensible decision making. Maturity used to be deemed the age 21 and now it is 18. There is a good case for making it higher on some issues.

Probably won't notice whether we are in or out.

Given the uncertainty going forward, maybe people will be more questioning of their actions. A lack of trade deal will mean a reversion to WTO rules and the imposition of tariffs. In theory this will make cars more expensive for example. Is it to much to hope that the mindless consumerism of the last few decades could be curtailed as a result? That would help reduce the current account deficit, which, in any case should be pretty much eliminated as a result of the fall in the sterling exchange rate.

This is absolute rubbish. I've had to wait 40 years to be able to voice an opinion that mattered concerning membership of the EU. I was 17 when the last referendum took place. Anyone under 59 has had the same wait. Those older than this have seen the EU develop and many are unhappy at what they see. The relentless assumption of the right of the EU to determine the minutiae of people's lives without any democratic accountability at any point. I voted to leave because the EU is dysfunctional and profoundly undemocratic. Any group of countries that organise a trading area with simplified rules, yet manages to surreptitiously convert itself into a social and political experiment where the aim is to merge half a billion people into a single entity ruled by an unelected person or persons HAS to be brought under control eventually. The one time they asked some of the potential electorate (the Lisbon Treaty), and I use potential because the right to vote was not a given, two countries had the temerity to vote the treaty down. With that unacceptable (to the EU commission) decision went the last time the European on the street would be consulted on what happened in the EU. As we know, once the correct answer had been given, the project moved on. It forced through the Euro project, which is a case of putting the cart before the horse. Political union can be followed by monetary union, or an exchange rate mechanism linking various currencies, but to tie the individual countries to a fixed rated without converged economies (and controlled so they remain that way) is never going to work. The EU has become its own worst enemy given the lack of accountability. Immigration has always and will always occur between nations. I won't be alone on this forum in having been offered positions in other countries when working abroad. It happens on a regular basis in just about every walk of life. People do care about uncontrolled immigration however, just as I would have had to pass suitability tests to prove that the job I was doing was specific to me in any country I chose to move to. That doesn't make people racist or intolerant, rather just on top of the situation. Sanctuary and the right to live here has been freely offered to many people in the past, and there is no reason to assume that mindset would change. The current problem is notr that people are migrating per se, rather that they are doing so in uncontrolled numbers and at a speed faster than they can be comfortably processed. As someone who can reasonably expect to live at least another 10 or 20 years, to suggest that this is a load of fossils creating piles of crap for the younger generations is way out. I forecast that after a few decades, the previously young members of the EU will accumulate sufficient experience of the EU to arrive at a similar position to the old gits of today. As for Boris and Trump running the UK and US respectively, I was not aware that either had been elected yet. Thank you for the belated info.

Sorry ChKy, I've already had a much better offer (again). After a 6 month hiatus interspersed with only 5 offers, the Indian idiot has resumed his daily diatribe. first i want to tell you that you want to deposit advance cash of 80,00,000/- pounds in my account. bucause of this is our first deal and i want do it correctly. and then we sign document about the deal. i have maharaja bhagavat sinhji clocks orrlions company of madras (1860) worth 10,00,000/- pounds. all the photos added if you charged commission you want deposit all the amount( 80,00,000/- pounds this is request to you that i want this value ( 80,00,000/-) . i give minimum 2000 ancient coins if you are not satified with this. i give you more 8000 ancient coins to you. but i want this value. first you want to cash deposit 80,00,000/- pounds in my account. res. sir, herewith i know you that i have lots of ancient coin to sell. like 50,000/- ancient coins, but i want to sell 2000 ancient coin in 80,00,000/- pounds advance cash deposit in my account before deal document signed by us. from myside no cheat, no fraud, just honest deals from me. because i want to go far with you and this business. i have lots of ancient items to sell. i have potential to give you profitable items. if you are interested please call me of email me. 00918469466030. chintan tank, near new haveli, jamnavad road, LAXMI KLYAN, NEAR SANGATH APP. DHORAJI:- 360 410, RAJKOT, GUJRAT, INDIA. details of coins 1. rs.1 coins :- 39 pecies 2. rs.50 paisa :- 38 pecies 3. rs.25 paisa :- 60 pecies 4. rs. 20 paisa :- 7 pecies 5. rs. 10 paisa :- 879 pecies 6. rs. 5 paisa :- 801 pecies 7. rs. 3 paisa :- 1 pecies 8. rs. 2 paisa :- 9 paisa 9. rs. 1 paisa :- 2 pecies 10 rs. 1/2 paisa :- 1 pecies 11. victoria coin :- 10 coins 12. maharaja pragmalji maharaj :- 1 pecies 13. princely coin :- 1pecies 14. silver coin of victoriya :- 2 pecies TERMS AND CONDITION OF DEAL 1. WE DEAL VIA BANK WIRE AND INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT 2. YOU MUST WANT TO DEPOSIT ADVANCE CASH IN MY ACCOUNT(50% OF MAIN AMOUNT 80,00,000/- POUNDS) 3. I GIVE YOU 2000 ANCIENT COINS IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFY OF ITS PROFIT I GIVE MORE COINS AND GIVE YOU PROFITABLE BUSINESS.

As someone who has spent most of his life taking an anti-EU stance, his support for remain gave him an unpalatable choice. He could have stayed true to his principles.

I would be quite happy to see a Swiss style constitution, though the few Swiss nationals I know say it's a right pain having so many votes. Very interesting times.

In our house we had 2 kids vote for out and 2 for remain. I was out and the wife wasn't eligible. So essentially a broad reflection of the national vote. Everybody thought we would vote to remain in. The split within England will heal quickly IMO as the issue was not along party lines. Scotland is an unknown, as although there are calls for a second referendum, there is no forward vision of the EU they might vote to rejoin. I think it is quite possible that another country will vote to leave before they could apply as an independent country. If the EU had remained a trading area instead of a socio-political experiment carried out with no mandate, the result would likely have been different.

It was the lies peddled by both sides that made people sit back and form their own opinion of the EU. A campaign of fear doesn't work. Negative campaigning has been shown time and again not to work. Elections are won by giving hope - something that Remain could not be accused of offering. However right or wrong the Leave message, it did offer hope to those who felt ignored by Westminster. The hard work starts as of today

I wonder if this is the first time the politicians have actually done a survey of public opinion on this matter. The overwhelming response of those interviewed seems to be one of complete surprise. They actually had no feel for what the voters thought.

Quote of the night I believe belongs to Ed Miliband. 'There are a lot of issues that have been around for a very long time'............precisely Mr M. So long in fact that you could have done something about them too. Isn't it a bugger for politicians when you don't have a predetermined outcome.

Not the Euros, but football related. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36605999/swedish-footballer-sent-off-for-farting-on-the-pitch

That's the trouble with politics. It always degenerates into a mud slinging match instead of addressing the issues at hand. If you wanted to get Parliament functioning as it was intended, i.e. dealing with the nation's issues and controlling the country, you could do it on a shoestring. There's not more than a few dozen MPs that are fit for purpose. All the outspoken ones that refuse to toe the party line can have a job, as that's the only way to get original thinking.

I'd second the question re the vendor. That obverse looks awfully suspect with the pitting. The whole thing looks too clunky to me. I don't have an example to compare, but if you look at your copy of Spink, you will see that the inner circles of all illustrated types are made up of much smaller pellets and a lot more of them. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=269385 The above is a different type, but shows the fineness of detail employed, as does my Cnut. Again, the legend is much finer as is the beading

The centre of the rose doesn't look sharp enough for unc, though that might be the scan. That's always the first point to wear. Bagmarks are an occupational hazard, so as usual, patience is a virtue.