Rob

All politicians have a trough from which they feed and Brussels is no exception. Whether we are talking about duckponds in the UK or the ludicrously generous expenses of the European Parliament claimed for travel, not to mention the farce that is the monthly relocation from Brussels to Strasbourg, all are taking the taxpayer for a ride. Be a failed politician in your own country and Brussels will ride to the rescue with cozy package worth multiples of what they we earning at home. Snouts in troughs isn't restricted to politicians as industry and finance has proven time and again, but politicians are effectively employed by the taxpayer, who deserves better. 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. The only outcome will be taking directions from Brussels as they so decide.

Nothing is set in stone. People still get killed because they are on the wrong side of the religious divide, but it has to be born in mind that the world has moved on a long way in the 50 years since the troubles started. Within a few years of the start, both Ireland and this country signed up to membership of an organisation which dictates terms to its members, in theory negating any requirement for a united Ireland. With anyone able to live in any member state, with an outside possibility of political union resulting in a single state, the concept of fighting for a united Ireland rings hollow. Granted the agreement was signed 20 years ago and has lasted, but that also means a generation has grown up not living in a state of perpetual violence. Paramiltary and criminal activities go hand in hand, but the murder rate in London is now higher than Northern Ireland's, such has been the reduction in violence. The right of Irish citizens to travel freely between our two countries and live here predates the EU and is intended to continue, so anyone looking to achieve a united Ireland in the context of EU supremacy really needs to look at what they expect in practical terms. With EU law overriding national laws, the nation state is effectively defunct for members. You only have to look at the shower in Westminster to see that there are no natural leaders, such is the level of dependency on Brussels to do our thinking. 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.

The newsagent round the corner is quite a nice guy. He'd probably do ok. As for the politicians, forget them. Party politics always trumps consensus. 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. Meanwhile, the two Corbyns must be having a right old ding-dong. For one side of him the 29th March can't come quickly enough, whilst his other side panders to his party clinging to an illusion that the EU will somehow give him much better terms whilst still leaving the EU. As for the Lib Dems, they only seem to feel confident when closely collaborating with their ideological masters and as always support all things with Euro in the title. Eurotrash could be due for a rerun if they get to be in charge of programming. Hooray.

The budget redistribution payments are one cause of the economic malaise found in the peripheral states. It's all well and good saying we will distribute money to the poorer areas of the EU, but those payments come with strings attached. Economic investment in a deprived area is best invested in projects/industries/products that are currently imported into the recipient state. However, to compete with existing industries will fall foul of EU legislation forbidding state aid to the detriment of other EU enterprises. Hence, you are only allowed to invest handouts in something that doesn't provide lasting prosperity as a result of commercial competitiveness. That is why the handouts are returned to the economic powerhouses in the form of traded goods produced by the main countries of the bloc. It boils down to who makes your buckets and spades. Do you have an independent industrial policy that encourages industry here, or do you rely on a political body that doesn't particularly have any interest in your or any other nation's problems. A nation's prosperity ultimately depends on it having a positive balance of payments in order to fund the luxuries such as social care, health care, education etc. These are long term projects that require long term funding. Given the main source of funds is taxation receipts, it should be incumbent on any political party to ensure economic conditions maximise business profits, because without profitable businesses, the future of all the things people allegedly hold dear is very bleak.

'I' didn't apply for the referendum either, but if you had asked me at any time in the past few decades 'did I want to leave the EU?' then the answer would have been yes every time. I didn't expect the opportunity to be given a say, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote to change the status quo given the chance. 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. Centralisation isn't peculiar to the EU, as every country has it's economic centre which attracts all the money with the parallel in this country being London which sucks investment out of the regions. The EU is simply following this trend but on a supra-national scale. There will be no appetite for a person representing Berlin to say we need to move x% of our industry to Thessaloniki or wherever because we are doing too well, and they are suffering. As for the referendum, I think I would give the population more credit than some for their reasoning to leave. Neither side covered itself in glory, but a lot of people discussed the issue with rational discussion and without resorting to nationalistic/jingoistic rhetoric.

Large numbers of tokens were struck in seemingly small quantities, but given many didn't circulate, relative to the number of collectors they remain only scarce. It's the old supply and demand thing. These days, the only important thing is availability and grade from statistics taken in the past few decades. Anything earlier cannot be corroborated with an alternative contemporary study. Some things will always fight above their weight, whilst others will be unloved irrespective of rarity.

We could have an indefinite number of referendums. The important point is not whether we have one, but rather, what is the question. We had the one that asked if we wanted to stay in the EU and the answer was no. That's been asked. The next, if parliament can't get its act together should surely be do we accept or reject the terms we are offered, not do we want to reverse the original decision.

Something a bit different. 1828 two pounds reverse uniface in copper.

A common enough coin, but an ok example with a tone that says it sat in a cabinet for a long time.

P904 variety with first 7 over 1 and 3 over 7. Not the best grade-wise and weakly struck, but plenty of original colour.

P730

Peck 991

My money would be on it being Nickel given the known 1923 & 1924 nickel shillings. Iron or some other ferrous material doesn't give many options. Modern neodymium magnets aside, the only magnetic elemental candidates are Iron, Cobalt & Nickel

I think they changed them if something from a recent sale they had imaged was a significant improvement on the existing picture. They also used personal collections on occasion, as these frequently contain better coins than what passes through the saleroom. The best known of anything tends not to do the rounds.

That's certainly a 5 over 5, but it is quite possible, even likely that both exist. The chances of them using up every 1743 die exactly on the end of the year is something I wouldn't bet on. You do get overstrikes for virtually every previous year from 1732 onward - 1732/1, 1734/3, 35/34, 36/35, 39/35, 39/37, 41/39, 42/40, 43/41, 46/45 and 48/47 all spring to mind, so there is no reason why 1745/3 should be an exception. The output in all years was sufficient that there would always be a few dies in use.

Looks like a different interpretation given the reference numbers are the same. I can't comment as I don't have one.

Nobody. All it needs is a politician with balls. Someone has to get us out cleanly without our leaving being at the EU's whim. They are never going to let us go when May has negotiated a free lunch for them in perpetuity. If it comes to another referendum (which would be an EU-esque travesty in itself), then a clean break, no-deal it has to be as the only viable option to get this country out of the mess it finds itself in. Staying in the EU is no panacea because the common currency is not renogtiable, so the undervalued German component can pump out its wares to the detriment of the rest of the EU ad infinitum. Like it or not, the only mechanism to give this country any hope of having a balanced and viable economy is to be free of any interference from Brussels. It won't be easy, but does at least have a chance of success, as opposed to remaining in or being subservient to the EU, which would not.

I suspect this might make a resurgence, but as for politicians being insulted for the sake of it, most people have better things to do. It's a great shame they aren't working jointly and constructively for the public good, preferring to play party politics as this is where their true allegiance lies. Greasy poles and all that......

£50 for this, £40 for that is normal for specialist books. The problem is for many people, spending a tenner on a book is still viewed as un-necessary expenditure.

It is such a broad and eclectic hobby that you will struggle to put a meaningful list up beyond listing the standard references. Anything specialised and you rapidly go off into nerd territory, with books costing a relatively large amount, which is something most can't stomach.

Don't have a 1998 here, only 97.

It's a different world out there. I can't remember which sale, but a 1960 1/2d went for $80(?) or some similarly ludicrous sum on the back of a 65 label. But then there is only one of them known...............not

The pictures tended to be changed when a large number of suitable coins became available that were an improvement over the existing material. Andrew Wayne's Saxon was used extensively, as were other collections. I don't think there was any policy regarding the length of time a picture was used.

No spares, but I can have a look at the Midland in 10 days time if you aren't going.

Looks ok. What is on the other side of the ticket? However, looking at your initial post, don't bid as it is a ninepence, not a shilling.