Peckris 2
-
Posts
3,411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
162
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Peckris 2
-
-
9 hours ago, azda said:
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!
-
On 12 December 2018 at 11:33 AM, Rob said:
First, I applaud your appreciation of the splendid organ that is 'Private Eye'. That cover was worthy of inclusion in the 'Stuff that makes us laugh' thread.
Custom unions are ok as a decision of equals pulling similar weight, but not for a country as an outsider with no say in their formulation. The EU is a mature customs union with policy dictated by the Commission and rubber stamped by the European Parliament. The EU dictates the rules of any participation in that union and is not going to consider doing something which dilutes their position to accommodate the aspirations of potential members. Clearly it is easier to reach an agreement with fewer constituent members, but that is not the situation in this case. We would unambiguously be rule takers.
The problem with a customs union in this case is that it requires potential participants to sign up to all the other legislative baggage such as the freedom of movement, social legislation, state aid etc. that accompanies any joint intent to permit free trade. The EU would not change its own rules on a single point in the interest of a trade agreement. Now I'm not saying that all the baggage is necessarily wrong in principle, but as a country outside the decision making process, it is not in our interest to sign up to an agreement that requires religiously following rules set up by a body which (rightly) has no interest in satisfying the needs of a country over which it has no direct control.
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.
On 12 December 2018 at 1:05 PM, 1949threepence said:I could handle Labour if they weren't led by the quasi communist Corbyn, and his bunch of loud mouthed, ignorant, abusive acolytes.
Moreover, I still want to know what direct action Corbyn plans to deal with the Brexit crisis. He's been too busy telling all and sundry what May is making a mess of, to actually tell the public what he would do if the EU still won't budge. So Mr (apparently) Prime Minister in waiting, please tell us. I'm sure we're all ears.
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).
On 12 December 2018 at 1:19 PM, 1949threepence said:Mind, this country is full of the most breathtaking hypocrisy. Can you imagine the meltdown that would have occurred if an English MP had made the sort of comments about the gay community that Ian Paisley jnr and Iris Robinson made? Yet it's allowed to pass without too much fuss in their case. Why? - are they some sort of special case that is treated differently, or what?
Either let everybody give their uncensored views freely, or clamp down hard on all of them the same.
Only because the hate speech laws which we - rightly - have in Great Britain, don't seem to apply in N Ireland?
On 12 December 2018 at 9:12 PM, Sword said:Well, May managed to win the confidence vote 200-117. That's at least much better than Corbyn's confidence vote by labour MPs not so long ago 😀.
But she had to declare that she would not led the Tories into the next election which surely weakens her position somewhat. One wonders if she can make it to the meaningful vote without another major crisis.
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'!
On 13 December 2018 at 10:33 AM, 1949threepence said:All these various politicians pontificating on the deal not being acceptable, but leaving without a deal, unthinkable - I don't get them? If the EU won't budge (apart from some backstop conditions) what the chuffing hell would they do different for Christ's sake? How will their deal differ from this one?
The circle is completely unsquarable.
Just stop squabbling, get on with it and accept the deal - end the uncertainty for business and the population.
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!
-
1
-
-
On 12 December 2018 at 7:17 PM, terrysoldpennies said:
I could be wrong , but I could have sworn its 1908 Penny.
Nice coin though
Yes, that's what Paddy said it was !!
-
On 12 December 2018 at 6:28 PM, Peter said:
Must say the currency is more appealing.In fact the proof is a bit of a munter.
Interesting. I thought the opposite - the proof has some lovely toning.
On 13 December 2018 at 4:45 PM, pedro11 said:Thanks Guys, it looks quite different does anyone know the different values for the different coin sets ? and is specimen the same as proof?
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.
-
8 hours ago, Rob said:
The problem with the backstop is that it requires both sides to satisfy the criteria of no border whilst at the same time the EU insists that the UK is in a temporary customs union in order to protect its borders from unfair third state competition until it is possible to provide an alternative. This is likely to prove extremely difficult in its execution as it would require electronic scanning of lorries moving in either direction for the passage of conforming items, but any item that does not conform to agreed standards or is otherwise unregulated would need some method of customs inspection. i.e. Those two provisions are essentially mutually exclusive, so a prolonged and potentially open-ended customs union is not a fanciful distortion.
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.
-
1 hour ago, ozjohn said:
Someone needs to. From Australia you are looking like a weak country being pushed around by the EU mainly due to incompetent leadership by May who says one thing and then proceeds to do something else. When May said Brexit means Brexit her real agenda was staying in the EU at any cost. One thing that is obvious is the border between the UK and the Irish Republic is the business of the two countries NOT the EU. As for the divorce bill 29 B. Euros for what not even a trade deal, no guarantee of leaving and no input into the EU laws after "Brexit". The best deal possible? All you have is the crumbs off the table. Shame on you. I thought the UK had some pride.
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.)
-
3 hours ago, Rob said:
As long as the terms of the backstop require the EU's permission to leave, they can extract as much as they want from us. As it stands we have no bargaining power. If we say we want to leave then they will wave their copy of the agreement and say it needs our agreement. All this bodes ill for the future negotiations. With 27 nations each looking for their Brexit bonus, and this country having no guaranteed exit, it is well nigh impossible to argue that we won't be subservient to whatever they demand. They might give way on one or two things such as Gibraltar because that is covered by an existing treaty and nobody in Europe wants to unwind what is essentially a stable stalemate at the risk of opening other wounds, but it would still leave us exposed to the demands of the other 25 who will be looking to gain maximum access to our markets. Not good.
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!!
-
54 minutes ago, Nick said:
Which is why taking the WTO option is what we should do. Some short term pain for long term gain.
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.
9 hours ago, Rob said:The EU says the backstop is their insurance policy, but given the terms, it is most beneficial to them as the one that ensures we will keep the Brussels trough fed for years to come. Anything that means our leaving the EU at their convenience is subservience whichever way you look at it. Rees-Mogg's statement of us as a future vassal state is entirely appropriate.
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'!!!
-
4 hours ago, Rob said:
Ultimately May was wrong to allow the inclusion of the backstop. From the minute it was mooted, it was clearly an affront to our sovereignty as I pointed out in a letter to the FT at the time. I applauded the DUP then, and still think they are right to stand their ground. If the backstop wasn't there I think it would have been passed in the Commons on a free vote, whether I agree with the document or not.
The so-called backstop is absolutely essential. Any threat to the Good Friday Agreement is utterly unthinkable.
-
2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
Might be something to do with the fact that they are net beneficiaries, rather than net contributors.
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.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Rob said:
It's difficult to equate the referendum result 40+ years ago with the situation today. Then we were joining a trading bloc. today the question is do we want to be part of something that will mutate in the not too distant future into a political union. The common currency will ensure that, as wealth is increasingly concentrated in the best performing economies, of which Germany stands head and shoulders above the rest to the detriment of the periphery which includes this country. The only solution to this polarisation is political union which would permit a central government to unilaterally redistribute wealth and wealth creation across the Union. It means that the constituent nations will no longer be in control of their own economic policies and indeed the end of the nation state. The member nations aren't going to vote for this voluntarily, but may end up in that situation as a last resort. To get out of this federalist situation requires us to leave.
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.
-
-
7 minutes ago, Chingford said:
This isn't about what is best for the UK anymore it is all about Party Politics
Newsflash: that's what it was always about. The only people pushing for a referendum were UKIP voters and genuine Euroseptics, who - judging from the 1975 referendum result - amount to somewhere less than 40% of the electorate. Cameron wanted all those UKIPpers back in the Tory fold - where the majority originally came from - so he promised them a referendum during the 2015 GE campaign as he desperately wanted to end Coalition government. Purely party political.
The EU has become a monopoly, anything passing the members boarders is subject to tariffs, taxes or red tape to make the members equivalent goods and services look cheaper.
I would replace the word monopoly (which applies to individual companies providing particular commodities or services), with the phrase 'single market', which is actually what it is; there is no free trade bloc anywhere in the world which operates without rules and tariffs to states that exist outside that bloc UNLESS - as in the case of the EU - particular trade deals have been negotiated with individual states, and then all 28 member states can trade freely with "third countries".
-
1 hour ago, ozjohn said:
A clean break you have a chance to make your own future. Accept May/EUs terms more of the same with no input to the rules that govern the EU a pretty poor result or abandon Brexit where you will ignore the will of the people. The Tory government will probably fall and you will end up with a Labor government led by that maniac Colbyn. Some choice Not to say we do not have our own problems here in Australia with the likely return to a Labor government lead by Shorten an ex Trade Union official who has been involved in various controversial actions during his time with the Australian Workers Union such as ghost members, selling out his members and non disclosure of election donations. In summary I think our problems pale into insignifance compared with yours.
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.
-
3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
We've already voted to leave, so a second referendum should ask the electorate to choose one of two options, a) Accept Mrs May's deal, or b) Leave outright on WTO terms. Obviously it wouldn't be that wording, but net effect the same.
3 hours ago, secret santa said:Absolutely - a referendum should be a binary question, i.e. either option A or option B
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!
-
On 5 December 2018 at 12:28 AM, blakeyboy said:
I didn't think we HAD a constitution, but I agree- 52:48 result was an instant problem.
Oh- as far as I remember, 'referendum' isn't neuter second declension, but a gerund, 'The asking' which has no plural ending,
so 'referendums' is likely ( jury is still slightly out) to be the correct plural English form. Long time ago. ( Latin and my learning of it. Another gerund there,....( I think)....)
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.
-
1
-
-
I would have recommended Picasa, but even that's gone the way of all flesh.
-
15 hours ago, ozjohn said:
The leavers have spoken at the referendum. I know some people think it was close and many did not vote but that is normal for UK politics but if it were a general election a 52/48% win would make any political party very happy. If there were to be another referendum what would this achieve as I think you would have to reapply for membership under much worse conditions such as being forced to use the Euro, joining the Schengen zone etc.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 2 December 2018 at 2:15 PM, azda said:
The older generation do 😂
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.
So, Brexit....What's happening?
in Nothing whatsoever to do with coins area!
Posted
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.