DaveG38

Two points. My understanding is that all 28 states have to agree the extension, and although it might be assumed Boris would vote for his own request, he might be able to say quite clearly that he votes against it. That seems to be a possibility. There is one other nuclear option open to him. Boris goes to the summit and outlines his plan for a deal on leaving. If he gets agreement, then no problem. If he doesn't, he is expected to ask for an extension. But if he resigns as PM immediately prior to signing and handing over the request for an extension, he is no longer legally obliged to make the request. It would take some choreography, but it could happen. At this point, no request has been made, the summit ends and the UK leaves with no deal in 14 days. Boris remains the Tory leader, just not PM, something he can justify with a massive hole in his majority. That would leave the opponents scrambling around for a PM to deliver the letter, but the problem is that the summit is over and there is no clear mechanism for obtaining the agreement of the other EU states. Anybody see any holes in this scenario. It has the advantage for Boris, of allowing him to claim he managed to deliver Brexit, despite all the efforts of parliament.

£8k.

That's really helpful. My grandparents died in the late 1970s/ early 80s and I have no idea what happened to their clock. I was just immediately struck by it when I saw your picture of the coin cabinet, especially so given the date in the mid 1930s, which would work very well with their ownership of one of these. Many thanks for the information about it. Sorry for the digression from coin related matters!

More interesting to me is the clock. My grandparents had an identical one many years ago. Who is the maker and do you know the model?

One of those few occasions where the sale price is way below estimate? Usually its the other way round.

Can't say I do, but you learn something every day!

More like Benny Hill to me!

I worked as a teenager in several J Lyons teashops during the late 1960s, prior to decimalisation, often on the till (it was this experience that sparked my interest in coins), and at that time I never once saw an Edward VII silver coin of any kind, nor did I see any pre-1920 silver coins. Even pre-1947 were scarce, but not that unusual, albeit generally very worn. Clearly, the sterling silver coins were being rapidly taken out of circulation even prior to decimal day. Given this, I would be surprised if many such coins stayed in circulation post-decimalisation. Bronze was not much different. Edward VII pennies were fairly common, halfpennies not so. Victorian pennies were readily available, albeit worn washers or old head in about Fine grade. I never once saw a Victorian halfpenny of any grade.

How about 'give me two random numbers, at least one of which must be less than 25'?

This business of 'not knowing' what we voted for is a very disingenuous argument. Firstly, without undertaking the negotiations in advance there was no way in which the position we are in today could have been predicted with sufficient accuracy for us to have made an 'informed' decision. In other words there's no way we could have had all the information to make an 'informed' decision. What we did have, and is conveniently forgotten by all those who make this argument is the 'leaflet' from the government. Take a careful look at that and it is very clear that the pros and cons of leaving were laid out, as were the risks. No mention of the Irish border, but otherwise there was enough in there to allow anybody to make as informed a decision as they could with the knowledge available at the time. The other item of interest is on the last but one page, where it says in plain English 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'

The official government did. It was crystal clear.

Sorry, but how do you know May didn't try to get a bad deal? After all one of her own inner circle commented recently that she was always in damage limitation mode, so the logic of that would be to make the deal so poor that we don't leave. Its a perfectly sound ploy to achieve what she really wants, without it being obvious that she has engineered it that way. Also, exactly how does staying in a customs union, the worst of all worlds, honour the result, when it was made crystal clear by just about everyone that leaving meant leaving the single market and customs union? 'Honouring the result' is the last thing that this will do. Its spitting on the votes of all those who voted to leave.

Sorry, but in my opinion MPs deserve every insult they get, when they don't do as they agreed to. I don't let them off anything. And as for them trying their best and having a conscience about how they are acting, that's the best laugh I've had all day. If they were trying their best they would be going for Brexit, not doing everything they can to thwart it, all the time trying to make out that they respect the vote. That latter is the most insulting comment they can make.

The dictionary definition of 'traitor' is 'a person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle.' Given that MPs voted for the referendum, voted to trigger A50 and stood on a manifesto of leaving the EU, I regard the definition as entirely appropriate when applied to somebody like Dominic Grieve, since he IS betraying everything he and his party has stood on. As are many of his colleagues in the Tory party. As for the next election, I'm entirely in favour of deselection and/or voting them out, but that is too little too late when they have betrayed the country regarding Brexit. If remain had won the referendum, then no, those still advocating 'leave' would not be traitors, since the decision to remain would have been immediately communicated to the EU i.e the referendum result would have been respected and from that point forward there is nothing undemocratic in continuing to press for a different outcome. However, since the matter would have been settled such a position would have gained little support even from those who wished to leave, for the simple reason that democracy would have been seen to be upheld and respected. The problem with the current situation is that we haven't left, leavers do not respect the result and are actively seeking to undermine it. If we do manage to leave, remainers are then quite entitled to campaign for us to re-join. There would be nothing traitorous in that. It is the failure to enact what they promised which, in my view, justifies my description of them.

In some ways the betrayal of Brexit will make the job of those parties that want to leave very simple tt the next election. I can see the message on the side of the bus right now: 'Vote The Traitors Out.' It should resonate with a large number of voters and may result in a very different political landscape in the future! Hopefully with the loss of a whole slew of remainer MPs: the likes of Anna Soubry for one, but maybe many others as well. If so, then good riddence.

The problem with all these reasonable positions is that the referendum was a binary choice, in which one side or other was bound to be upset. When it comes to the implementation phase, there is no simple way to keep both sides happy. Pandering to remainers desire to stay in is completely incompatible with leavers desire to go. There is no happy medium compromise that can accommodate everyone. You can't be a bit and a bit out. Its an impossible position to square. It's also the reason why leavers are so pissed off with parliament, because the basic terms of leaving were explained in the Cameron leaflet, and the MPs promised to respect and implement the result. The reverse is actually what they are doing, and in my view we are likely to be just a few weeks away from revocation of A50 - the final betrayal. If what I suggest comes to pass i.e. we remain, then here's a nice simply question for anybody who is a remainer and wants to see compromise and a soft to non-existant Brexit. When it comes to leaving you argue for compromise so that 'everyone' can be 'happy.' If we remain in the EU, what compromise is going to be offerred to the 17.4 million leavers, so that their position is protected? How are their desires to be managed, or is it a case of the remainers must be accommodated but the leavers will just have to accept the changes? And a final thought. Why do all you remainers so avidly want to stay in this mafia club? I won't go on about it here, but there's a long list of objections to the EU, which when you put them together make me wonder why anybody in their right mind would want to stay. On the other side, I've yet to see a cohesive and compelling argument in favour of remaining, at least not one that isn't full of all the negative reasons, as opposed to positives.

It has no chance of regaining the faith of the people, since the traitorous bunch have thwarted Brexit at every turn. The reputation of MPs was very low prior to the latest shambles, but now is even lower, if that was possible. Now they have stopped Brexit, they have disenfrachised 17.4 million people, for many of whom there can be no redemption whatsoever for MPs. And despite their treachery, there are still some like Dominic Grieve who think that its so unfair to try to deselect them, that they have some god given right to be in Parliament and are so much more intelligent and knowledgeable that the plebs that they despise.

I too have bought quite a number of coins from Dave C, with never a problem regarding grade, attribution or price. The Southampton dealer is another matter - my only 'purchase' was a 1902 matt proof maundy set, which rapidly went back.

That's the logical likelihood, but I wouldn't put money on that treacherous bunch of MPs not cancelling Brexit altogether, by revoking A50.

Apparently, this is a nice collectable coin!!! https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HALF-PENNY-OF-GEORGE-III-NICE-COLLECTABLE-COIN-BJ27/163144055851?hash=item25fc24bc2b:g:U~4AAOSwnKFcLnrN

That explains the + then.

Here's a new grade! https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1855-Four-Pence-Victoria-Silver-Coin-UNC/233092612896?hash=item3645670320:g:l90AAOSw8l5Zc-AA:rk:14:pf:0

This is the whole problem - it isn't, not really. The reason for the second vote is to assume that people now know much more about the implications of it all than they did in 2016. If the second vote was again Leave then, like all the other Remainers, I'd have to swallow it and accept it however much I hated it. I'm sorry, but I have never bought this argument. When the referendum was called it had to ask a simple question i.e. in/out. There was no option for any shades of grey. It's true that people didn't know exactly what the terms of leaving would be, but it was IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to know this at that time. People cast their votes on the basis of what they did know, what the government told them and what their own experiences told them. There was also no question raised at the time to suggest that the government would act on the result and would then check with the people whether the terms were OK via another referendum. They could have done so, but chose not to. Was it perfect? No, but could it have been any better? Probably not. Neither side was entirely truthful, but in the end it was a simple choice for us to make, and the result was perfectly legitimate. We should now be making the best of it, and politicians should be enacting the will of the people. There is no excuse not to, since they asked us for a steer on what they should do, and the referendum result was that steer. The fact they didn't like it is their problem not ours.

I'm all in favour of a second referendum. But since the question of whether we leave or not is already settled, this should not be an option, in which case the question should simply be: May's deal or no deal.Politicians won't go for it, but it is the only logical option.