Strange to hear nobody talk about Tony's proposed EU referendum. If it does take place in 2005 it gives all anti metric people an indirect vote to say nay to that measure. Truly a momentuous decision in more way ways than one.

....trust him to mix up the issues.

I wonder how many referendums (-enda?) we'll need until they get the the right answer.

'tis up to your own collective minds to find out who "they" are

re (metre): "If [the Referendum] does take place in 2005 it gives all anti metric people an indirect vote to say nay to that measure. Truly a momentuous decision in more ways than one..."

REPLY by Tony Blair:

Yes, momentous indeed. As most of my Premiership has been.

Clearly all anti-metric people could not be allowed to vote, knowing as we do of use their biased and incorrect ideas. If you could kindly supply me a list of all BWMA members and any other 'anti-metric people', I'll be pleased to ensure that regulations are passed so that they are removed forthwith from the electoral roll.

I am also concerned about all those - around 30 to 40 million - who do not see the benefifs of the E.U. Constitution. I do not see how they should be allowed a vote, as they clearly lack the intelligence to see the huge benefits of accepting the Constitution. In addition, they're so thick that they listen to what the biased, eurosceptic, right-wing British press tell them, with all those daily lies and myths about the E.U.

I think if we could find a legal way of removing them from the electoral roll we should be able to get the 'right' result. If not, well, I'll hold another referendum soon afterwards, like they did in Denmark over the Maastricht Treaty and in Ireland over the Nice Treaty.

The trouble with these eurosceptics is they play on people's fears all the time.

Isn't it obvious to them that we must either be at the centre of Europe, at its throbbing heart, playing a full and positive part with our European partners, or end up as an isolated, marginalised, remote, desolate island on the periphery, the fringes and margins, adrift...

Here's two words that Blair won't want to hear during the campaigns:

Switzerland
Norway

Trust the people? April 22 2004, 2:14 PM


re (metre): "If [the Referendum] does take place in 2005 it gives all anti metric people an indirect vote to say nay to that measure. Truly a momentuous decision in more ways than one..."

REPLY by Tony Blair:

Yes, momentous indeed. As most of my Premiership has been.

Clearly all anti-metric people could not be allowed to vote, knowing as we do of use their biased and incorrect ideas. If you could kindly supply me a list of all BWMA members and any other 'anti-metric people', I'll be pleased to ensure that regulations are passed so that they are removed forthwith from the electoral roll.


metre:
You truly have gone around the bend.

You appear to agree with Mr Bennet?

Strange bed fellows.

In fact you've basically said exactly what he said - word for word.

Careful, Tony!

Great headline in the 'Guardian' today on that referendum on the E.U. Constitution:

"Will there be a second referendum if we get the wrong answer on the first referendum?. Blair says 'Yes, No, Maybe - That's My Final Answer'"

Tony's offer to have a referendum is purely voluntary.There is no law to compell him. I presume he credits enough voters with the intelligence to realise where their bread is buttered. Maybe that is needed to get a clear mandate to carry out the necessary reforms including metrication?

Blair's referendum is voluntary, but is it binding?

I'm in favour of a referendum as democratically it is undoubtedly the right thing to do.

But then on the other hand I think I'd rather have the future of my country decided by elected politicians than by Rupert Murdoch.

Oh well, if we do end up leaving the EU as a result of rejecting the constitution, at least it might speed up the metrication process..

I bet the capaign groups follow the following route:

The "No" group: Will campaign that it's dangerous to Britain and will highlight exact areas why from the text of the constitution itself.

The "Yes" group: Will tell everyone how dangerous and naieve the "No" group are and say that they're all extremists

You watch...

(P.S. I'm not entirely sure the Brits see Murdoch as a hero figure)

<<<(P.S. I'm not entirely sure the Brits see Murdoch as a hero figure)>>>

I don't think they realise how much he influences their opinions

All the newspapers told Sweden(?) to back the euro.

The people voted "no" (or nej, or whatever).

See all the failed tories coming out of the woodwork, criticising their leader (blair) for the first time? Now Patten has shown crass ignorance to the meaning of true democracy.

As he carries out his unelected post.

Re: EU Referendum April 26 2004, 10:51 AM


I'm in favour of a referendum as democratically it is undoubtedly the right thing to do.

But then on the other hand I think I'd rather have the future of my country decided by elected politicians than by Rupert Murdoch.

Oh well, if we do end up leaving the EU as a result of rejecting the constitution, at least it might speed up the metrication process..

metre:
It would do no such thing, just the opposite. Canada and its measurement twilight zone is what you can look forward to for generation to come. A lose lose situation for everyone.
But it won't come to that. If the new constitution does not get the required majority it will not pass, finito.

Re: EU Referendum April 26 2004, 7:50 AM


Blair's referendum is voluntary, but is it binding?


metre:
It passes only if enough EU member States vote for it.

I know that, but what I was asking was is the popular vote binding on the government? In other words, if a majority vote against it, can Blair still legally go ahead and approve the constitution?

<<< It would do no such thing, just the opposite. Canada and its measurement twilight zone is what you can look forward to for generation to come. A lose lose situation for everyone.
>>>

We are in that twilight zone anyway! Canada is way ahead of us in terms of metrication isn't it?

My argument is that the main reason for opposition to metrication in Britain is that it is perceived to be something the EU is forcing us to do. If we had never been a member of the EU I think we would be much closer to full metrication.

<<<My argument is that the main reason for opposition to metrication in Britain is that it is perceived to be something the EU is forcing us to do. If we had never been a member of the EU I think we would be much closer to full metrication>>>

Unfortunately this goes against those EU fantatics who want to keep imperial intact. It also goes against the EU-haters that want an end to imperial. It's simply not that -erm- simple!

BTW Someone on this board (not you andy) is showing a slight ignorance to the workings of the EU and the treaties it has passed.
Take a look at the ones that have failed to pass, if you get my drift.

From Andy:
<<
My argument is that the main reason for opposition to metrication in Britain is that it is perceived to be something the EU is forcing us to do. If we had never been a member of the EU I think we would be much closer to full metrication.
>>

Andy, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

Opponents of metrication percieve it to be a plot by forces trying to take over the world.

The real situation is more complex than this.

There is no real evidence that political forces actually use weights and measures as a weapon to achieve world domination.

When looked at dispassionately it isn't difficult to see that the world-wide adoption of the International metric system is much more likely to be motivated by simple practical and economic convenience.

People are entitled to express and stand by their moral beliefs and values, sure. But there is no virtue in cutting ones nose off to spite ones face!

Re: EU Referendum April 27 2004, 7:29 AM


I know that, but what I was asking was is the popular vote binding on the government? In other words, if a majority vote against it, can Blair still legally go ahead and approve the constitution?


Yes it would be. Why have a referendum then ignore it? This is neither morally nor politically acceptable. Tony Blair actually puts his job on the line with a referendum that is legally not necessary. He must feel pretty secure to win it, to take that risk against the advice of his own colleagues.

Re: EU Referendum April 27 2004, 10:14 AM


<<< It would do no such thing, just the opposite. Canada and its measurement twilight zone is what you can look forward to for generation to come. A lose lose situation for everyone.
>>>

We are in that twilight zone anyway! Canada is way ahead of us in terms of metrication isn't it?

My argument is that the main reason for opposition to metrication in Britain is that it is perceived to be something the EU is forcing us to do. If we had never been a member of the EU I think we would be much closer to full metrication.

metre:
That surely contributes to the present malaise, but is not the main reason. No country on this earth would ever have voluntarily metricated. The fact that the metric system leaves imperial for dead plays no part at all in this sorry saga. Habit and mental laziness are the main culprits. Look at the Yanks. The most adamant US standard lovers, (the majority), are those who have the least clue about the metric system. Yet these ignorants dictate what system America's uses. Why, b/c US politicians haven't got the guts to stick their necks out for something every half educated person knows is far superior to what they have.The irony is, if you make the changeover mandatory, nobody ever wants to return to medieval misery thereafter.

Is he simply repeating his old (and lost) arguments over again?

Can I suggest we (ie normal pro-metrics, pro-choice and pro-imperial people) don't enter into arguments already won or lost, unless a new take on it has been made?

"Yes it would be. Why have a referendum then ignore it? "

Another pointer to someone who is totally ignorant to issues about the EU, and total recognition that he doesn't even have a basic knowledge of it!

I suspect that MattS and Bud will know more about the EU than him (no offence, chaps!)

<<
Yes it would be. Why have a referendum then ignore it? This is neither morally nor politically acceptable. Tony Blair actually puts his job on the line with a referendum that is legally not necessary. He must feel pretty secure to win it, to take that risk against the advice of his own colleagues.
>>

But what is stopping him from ignoring the results? He can go ahead and say that it was only advisory, and then do as he pleases. If there is no requirement for a referendum, then how can there be a requirement to follow its results?

Re: EU Referendum April 29 2004, 12:12 AM


<<
Yes it would be. Why have a referendum then ignore it? This is neither morally nor politically acceptable. Tony Blair actually puts his job on the line with a referendum that is legally not necessary. He must feel pretty secure to win it, to take that risk against the advice of his own colleagues.
>>

But what is stopping him from ignoring the results? He can go ahead and say that it was only advisory, and then do as he pleases. If there is no requirement for a referendum, then how can there be a requirement to follow its results?

metre:
Britain like any other EU country has a vote on the new EU constitution. The incumbent government representing the people could have voted yes on their behalf. That was the easy way out. Tony Blair, sick and tired of the Eurosceptics and some news papers spreading continued lies, like the EU forced Britain to go metric, wants to put it to the test. If he wins these liars had their day, if he loses god knows what happens. One thing is for sure, "nobody" wants the useless right wing opposition in power.

<<
One thing is for sure, "nobody" wants the useless right wing opposition in power.
>>
Yes, the number of people supporting the useless right wing opposition is small, even smaller than the number of Americans who use imperial measurements.

Nice one, Bud! lol!

"But what is stopping him from ignoring the results? He can go ahead and say that it was only advisory, and then do as he pleases. If there is no requirement for a referendum, then how can there be a requirement to follow its results?"

Two answers to this:

1) Rebellion from his own side (and I mean those who join the 60+ in the form of the "last straw" brigade)

2) All future local, EU, govt and bi-election results.

In fact my dream image, as a citizen/supporter of constitutional monarchy, is to see a no vote then see Blair say "it was advisory" and ignore it, then see the Queen, for the first time in her reign, overturn a parliamentary decision on purely constitutional grounds.

And all revolving around an alien constitution!

God that would be great!

BTW - regarding the "lies" from the right-wing press and politicians? Jeesh! They'll be telling us next that it'll be a criminal offence to weigh out fruit in lb/oz!!

Re: EU Referendum April 29 2004, 9:41 AM


<<
One thing is for sure, "nobody" wants the useless right wing opposition in power.
>>
Yes, the number of people supporting the useless right wing opposition is small, even smaller than the number of Americans who use imperial measurements.


Right now, republican voters and imperial lovers are equal in numbers. How much longer that will be so depends entirely on Iraqis and Bush's campaign chest.

Eric: "Everyone in the democrat party loves metric"

I will say this, the Bush regime doesnt pay much attention to domestic matters.

Bush May 2 2004, 3:44 AM


I will say this, the Bush regime doesnt pay much attention to domestic matters.


metre:

Until now Bush's No. 1 priority is his re-election. No 2 priorty is his re-election. No 3 priorty is his re-election.

Americans worry are: No.1 the Economy
No.2 Iraq
By the looks of it he can't do anything about your economy, because America cannot sell inch dimensioned products to a metric world. Hence your astronomical trade deficit and lousy economy.

Nor can he do much about Iraq, apart from killing them all, or pull his tail in and run. Lukily the second measure will prevail.

<<
Until now Bush's No. 1 priority is his re-election. No 2 priorty is his re-election. No 3 priorty is his re-election.
>>
Metre, the mind reader.

<<
Americans worry are: No.1 the Economy
No.2 Iraq
>>
Metre, the mind reader of foreigners.

<<
By the looks of it he can't do anything about your economy, because America cannot sell inch dimensioned products to a metric world. Hence your astronomical trade deficit and lousy economy.
>>
Metre, the idiot. (Sorry, couldn't think of another one.)

<<
Nor can he do much about Iraq, apart from killing them all, or pull his tail in and run. Lukily the second measure will prevail.
>>
Metre, the wizard who can read the future.

By the looks of it he can't do anything about your economy, because America cannot sell inch dimensioned products to a metric world. Hence your astronomical trade deficit and lousy economy.

Trade deficit is because of the inch. This one I'd love to see him prove.

The unemployment rate is 4.7% And the GDP grew by 4.2% last month and the month before 4.1% and the month before that 8.2%. Tell me how lousy that is?

Re: EU Referendum May 3 2004, 7:47 AM


<<
Until now Bush's No. 1 priority is his re-election. No 2 priorty is his re-election. No 3 priorty is his re-election.
>>
Metre, the mind reader.

<<
Americans worry are: No.1 the Economy
No.2 Iraq
>>
Metre, the mind reader of foreigners.

<<
By the looks of it he can't do anything about your economy, because America cannot sell inch dimensioned products to a metric world. Hence your astronomical trade deficit and lousy economy.
>>
Metre, the idiot. (Sorry, couldn't think of another one.)

<<
Nor can he do much about Iraq, apart from killing them all, or pull his tail in and run. Lukily the second measure will prevail.
>>
Metre, the wizard who can read the future.

metre: What mind?
You have joined the another mushroom. Reading your answer, you seem to enjoy the mental darkness you are immersed in, seems to be a predominantly American trait.

Lousy economy..... May 3 2004, 1:40 PM


By the looks of it he can't do anything about your economy, because America cannot sell inch dimensioned products to a metric world. Hence your astronomical trade deficit and lousy economy.

Trade deficit is because of the inch. This one I'd love to see him prove.

The unemployment rate is 4.7% And the GDP grew by 4.2% last month and the month before 4.1% and the month before that 8.2%. Tell me how lousy that is?

metre:
Over 8,000,000 unemployed, who the hell cares. What's that saying about statistics and lies?

Give me those statistics in other countries (or previous American administrations) and compare them to the ones I gave you.

For example:

Under President Clinton, Carter etc.
In France
In Germany
In Russia
In the UK
In Argentina

Then you tell me who's economy is lousy.

Oh, by the way, you were going to tell me why the trade deficit is because we use inches.

that you know very little about economics and even less about America and Americans? Apart from having a propensity to call them names quite a lot.

my last response was to eric, btw!

(sorry Matt)

The fact that the US sells non metric products to other countries is the the reason of it's debt. Much of it is due to the amount of jobs that have moved overseas in the last 3 decades. Until 2009 it will be legal to sell dual dimensioned products to the EU. Thus the US hasn't lost money yet, because the ban does not take effect until 2009. By the way those jobs moved overseas for cheap labor, not because they hated the USC measurements.

US Debt May 5 2004, 2:58 AM


The fact that the US sells non metric products to other countries is the the reason of it's debt. Much of it is due to the amount of jobs that have moved overseas in the last 3 decades. Until 2009 it will be legal to sell dual dimensioned products to the EU. Thus the US hasn't lost money yet, because the ban does not take effect until 2009. By the way those jobs moved overseas for cheap labor, not because they hated the USC measurements.

You got that wrong. It can only sell few inch dimensioned products b/c nothing matches with metric dimensions. Want an inch bolt in Europe, you order it in the US and so on. Of course greedy exploitation of 3rd world countries is America's forte. Reminds one of the good old slave economy.

May 4 2004, 1:29 PM


Give me those statistics in other countries (or previous American administrations) and compare them to the ones I gave you.

For example:

Under President Clinton, Carter etc.
In France
In Germany
In Russia
In the UK
In Argentina

Then you tell me who's economy is lousy.

Oh, by the way, you were going to tell me why the trade deficit is because we use inches

metre:
How dare you to put 2 countries, Russia & Argentina in that have been rendered basket cases by your idiotic IMF policies.

Comparisons are not as simple as you think, so lets look at that trade deficit. Last year you imported about 1.5 trillion dollars worth of goods and services. Your export for the same period was about 1 trillion dollars in goods and services and that was a good year. By now nobody remembers when America cut last even, or had a trade surplus.

Rest assured your inches are very much responsible for that ongoing deficit. You are living beyond your means on borrowed money. What a marvelous economy.

Correct me if I may be wrong, but i dont think i am. The last time the US had a yearly surplus was during the Clinton admistration, which almost everyone remembers. As for how long the US has been in debt you could say it started around the time of vietnam and the fuel crisis.

Do you honestly think that Europeans would buy more US goods if they were in metric? How would importing help the EU? I understand that USC items dont fit well with metric ones, but i doubt the EU would import much anyway, afterall the EU has their cheap labor next door in the former soviet countries.

Roth, I don't think the US has had a trade surplus for several decades. During the Clinton administration, however, there was a government budget surplus.
Metre, there are several things that effect an economy, and some people like some of them and others don't. It is easy to pick any one that you don't like and blame it for any problems that are visible in the economy. But even though the US may technically have been in a recession a little while ago, the fact still remains that it is one of the strongest economies, if not the strongest, in the world. Therefore, I don't think that it would be very wise for the US to look to Zimbabwe, New Zealand, Tanzania, or other recently metricated countries as role models on how to manage its economy. You're against customary units, so you say they are responsible for the trade deficit. Someone else who is against labor unions will say they are responsible for the trade deficit and recession. You are trying to demonstrate that customary units are bad by blaming them for a poor economy, but you have failed to show any link between the two, other than your own thoughts.

I still shudder in disbelief when I read people have a conversation with someone who is basing his "facts" on pure fantasy.
No inch based products in Europe?

Reminds me of why I cannot engage in rational debate with him.

Correct me if I may be wrong, but i dont think i am. The last time the US had a yearly surplus was during the Clinton admistration, which almost everyone remembers. As for how long the US has been in debt you could say it started around the time of vietnam and the fuel crisis.

Do you honestly think that Europeans would buy more US goods if they were in metric? How would importing help the EU? I understand that USC items dont fit well with metric ones, but i doubt the EU would import much anyway, afterall the EU has their cheap labor next door in the former soviet countries.

metre:
Yes I do, but it depends entirely on what you produce. If it’s innovative and of quality they will buy it. Europe has a sizeable trade with America now, but not in machinery, appliances and anything incompatible with metric standards.

Re: EU Referendum May 5 2004, 8:31 AM

Bud:
Metre, there are several things that effect an economy, and some people like some of them and others don't. It is easy to pick any one that you don't like and blame it for any problems that are visible in the economy. But even though the US may technically have been in a recession a little while ago, the fact still remains that it is one of the strongest economies, if not the strongest, in the world. Therefore, I don't think that it would be very wise for the US to look to Zimbabwe, New Zealand, Tanzania, or other recently metricated countries as role models on how to manage its economy. You're against customary units, so you say they are responsible for the trade deficit. Someone else who is against labor unions will say they are responsible for the trade deficit and recession. You are trying to demonstrate that customary units are bad by blaming them for a poor economy, but you have failed to show any link between the two, other than your own thoughts.


metre:
The reason I used trade is b/c it connects with antiquated measurements and is an ongoing problem. As you rightly say, your economic malaise goes much deeper. Lack of industrial innovation, (steel, agriculture, exodus of companies to take advantage of cheap 3rd world labour, and many others) contribute to the astronomical trade deficit.
You keep making the same mistake as all others, who maintain that the US is the strongest economy in the world. Wrong. It is the biggest and financed for decades with foreign money. If your average yearly deficit is only 0.3 trillion dollars over the last ten years how do you pay that back when you have only 3 years out of 35 with a federal surplus that is spent on tax cuts for the rich to suck in more imports that you cannot afford. Sure, the world is in a bind, and especially Asia. It depends on American imports to keep their economies going. To do so they have to buy like other COUNTRIES US treasury bonds. It is not your economy that supports the profligate life style some of you are accustomed to, but borrowed money that has to be paid back one day.

Metre: Expert extrordinaire on economics and music! What a combination.

I shudder to think that you have simplified US and world economic problems in 2 paragraphs on a discussion board on the internet. The whole world bows before your economic prowess.

Metre, let's set aside measurement for a bit and look at the economy. Much of what you stated above is accurate, but you have to remember that the majority of the public debt is held by Americans rather than foreigners, i.e., the US government owes money to its own taxpayers. Now if the debt was such a problem, then why would both Americans and foreigners continue to loan so many billions of dollars to the federal government every year? The answer is because they trust the government to pay it back. The federal government has never, since it was established, defaulted on a loan. US Government bonds are considered among the most secure in the world for this reason. As long as people have faith in this and continue to willingly loan money to the government, I don't see what the problem is. Eventually, if people stop loaning money, then the government will have to raise taxes to finance the bonds.
Also, remember that almost every industrialized country in the world is in debt. The US has the largest public debt in absolute terms, but when you look at debt as a percentage of GDP, the US is about equal to most other industralized countries.

Re: EU Referendum May 7 2004, 1:30 AM


Metre, let's set aside measurement for a bit and look at the economy. Much of what you stated above is accurate, but you have to remember that the majority of the public debt is held by Americans rather than foreigners, i.e., the US government owes money to its own taxpayers. Now if the debt was such a problem, then why would both Americans and foreigners continue to loan so many billions of dollars to the federal government every year? The answer is because they trust the government to pay it back. The federal government has never, since it was established, defaulted on a loan. US Government bonds are considered among the most secure in the world for this reason. As long as people have faith in this and continue to willingly loan money to the government, I don't see what the problem is. Eventually, if people stop loaning money, then the government will have to raise taxes to finance the bonds.
Also, remember that almost every industrialized country in the world is in debt. The US has the largest public debt in absolute terms, but when you look at debt as a percentage of GDP, the US is about equal to most other industralized countries.

metre:
I do acknowledge your reservations, but that changes nothing on the fact that your trade deficit is astronomical. Many European countries still use deficit spending in the spirit of John Maynard Keynes, noted British economist, deceased. America does pretty well the same without ever admitting it since economic rationalism became the vogue. Where most other countries are ahead of you is in trade surplusses, or balances. Your country suffers from both internal and external deficits. America's dollar hegemony was absolut till the Euro made its debut, and that changes the whole equation. If more and more countries adopt the Euro as their preferred trading currency, America will find it much harder to secure loans. It is already paying interest on interest without reducing the principal and that together with the Euro puts you into a very precarious position. What's more, your, and to a lesser degree Europe's oil based economies, are very vulnerable to oil price rises. When that happens your economy suffers much more than most.

Expert May 6 2004, 1:29 PM


Metre: Expert extrordinaire on economics and music! What a combination.

I shudder to think that you have simplified US and world economic problems in 2 paragraphs on a discussion board on the internet. The whole world bows before your economic prowess.

metre:
It obviously goes all over your head. So go back to the sandpit and you will feel very comfy again.

"Europe has a sizeable trade with America now, but not in machinery, appliances and anything incompatible with metric standards"

And people still debate with him, despite that absolute pile of unsubstantiated codswallop.