A few weeks ago I remember an American exchange student not knowing how to use the microwave as an oven and need a little assistance. We asked him what temperature he wanted it on, and he said "Three fifty" without knowing that that oven happened to work in Centigrade (we still have plenty working in Fahrenheight don't forget!)

See? If we go metric, the Americans will have problems and if we don't, Europeans will have problems. It's a no-win situation.

I conclude that we may as well not go through with such an unnecessary and undesirable transition from such easy-to-use customary units where we have nice numbers e.g. 4 instead of 100, 125 etc. to deal with. Anyone with any sense would agree - just remember: most people are one metre something, ranging from 3' 4" (tiny) to 6' 6" (massive). Pounds and ounces do have their superiority to kilos - a kilo of mushrooms would be too much for a pre-contraception family in Ireland or Italy to get through before they go off and pounds stand a better chance of producing a reading in whole numbers than kilograms - 2.205 times over.

Fahrenheit numbers are of course much bigger and more difficult to handle than Centigrade/Celsius.

It is useful to look at the amount of trade that the UK does with Europe and the amount that she does with the US. I obtained the follwoing figures form the CIA factbook:

Exports - partners:
EU 54% (Germany 11%, France 9%, Netherlands 7%, Ireland 7%), US 15% (2000)

Imports - partners:
EU 48% (Germany 11%, France 7%, Netherlands 6%), US 13%, Japan 5% (2000)


AS can be seen , the UK's trade with the rest of the EU is some three to four times as much as with the US. This appears to be a good case for metrication.

All of the above countries use the metric system for international trade is concerned, including the UK and US. The issue is whether people are permitted to use a traditional system as well.

It might be worth considering what the traditional systems in the EU countries were:

Germany never a a single traditional system. When teh Zollverein (Customs Union) was founded in the early ninteenth century, each state had its own system, and the metric system was used as a "lingua franca" across the entire customs union.

I believe that there was a similar argument in the Netherlands when they adopted the metric system in the 1820's (having had a taste of it during the Napoleonic era). Prior to the 1820's, each city had its own system of weights and measures. The Dutch Government redefined various weights in terms of metric units - the pond (pound) was redefined as 500g, the ons (ounce) as 100g etc.

Prior to the Revolution, the French had more than one set of measures so for them, the metric system too provided a means of tidying up what was a mess.

In light of this I do not see what "traditional measures" were used in the countries concerend.

That argument is like saying: we should not have cars, because a man with a red flag has to walk in front of them.

Interesting export / import figures.

Our trade with the "rest of the world" versus "EU" has always been around the 50/50 mark.

However, how I ask for beef in my local butcher has very little impact on how much steel the UK sells to the US.

Shall we grow up now?

<<
Our trade with the "rest of the world" versus "EU" has always been around the 50/50 mark.
>>

I agree. The 50% that constitutes the "rest of the world" is 15% - non metric countries (ie US) and 35% metric countries (ie everywhere else).

The result is that our international trade is about 85%metric and 15% non-metric.

You miss out the massive domestic trade and why, for example, the pub industry /drinks industry use gallons