This should be interesting. The EU wants the UK to set a firm date for going fully metric -- no more pints, miles, acres, etc.

[Pulls up beach chair, grabs beer and popcorn to watch the fun]

Two closely related articles, 2nd one quoted below:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1754222,00.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1558141,00.html
<<
Britain gave an inch. Now the EU wants 1.609km

We've already lost our pounds and yards. Will miles, pints and acres be next?

Mark Townsend and Ned Temko
Sunday August 28, 2005
The Observer


It has been described as 'a very British mess' that for decades has inspired a state of confusion among visitors and natives alike. How could it possibly be? A place where people drive in miles, but run in metres; where beer is quaffed by the pint, but water by the litre.
Now Brussels has said enough is enough. Officials from the European Commission have fired the first salvo in what may prove to be the most contentious move yet in Britain's long and tortured path to complete metrification. The end of the working man's favourite - the pint - along with its imperial bedfellow, the mile, has been signalled in what will be heralded by some as a heinous blow to the eccentricity of British life.

The Observer has learnt that the EC has ordered the government to announce a date when it will abolish the use of pints, miles and even Britain's farmers' acres.

A spokesman for the European Commission said the UK government had to fix a date 'as soon as possible' under their legal obligations. 'They are running behind on this,' he said. Although Whitehall sources countered last night that there is no prospect of banning pints in the immediate future, pro-metric campaigners were already claiming that by the end of the decade, Britain's growing army of drinkers could be swilling 568ml of ale before hopping in a taxi for the 1.609km journey home.

The development has triggered panic in Whitehall. Forty years after the government created the Metrification Board with the aim of completing the transformation to metric within a decade, any suggestion that Britain should rid itself of such national idiosyncracies remains, commentators believe, political suicide. In addition, the request from the Commission is likely to set Britain on another war footing with Brussels.

The Commission has warned that if the government fails to comply with its demands for a date, the UK risks facing an 'infringement procedure' that would force Britain's hand and, ultimately, could take the country to the European court in Strasbourg. Critics may see it as further evidence of grand theft by mainland Europe. Others will view it as proof of progress, albeit sluggish. More than 140 years have passed since a House of Commons committee recommended the unanimous adoption of the metric system. Yet along with the US, the UK remains the only country to have started converting to metric and failed to complete.

Even when a date is finally set, however, even the most ardent of pro-metric campaigners concede it will take years to move from imperial measures. The cost of replacing millions of pint glasses, alongside the logistics of changing every road sign in the land and 40 million car speedometers will make sure of that.

Government sources admit that talks over the metrification of road signs, pints and acres - terms covered under the commission's unit of measurement directive - are ongoing with Europe. However, a spokesman for the Department for Transport said there remained 'no reason to change road signs in the foreseeable future'.

When Britain finally bows to Brussels and sets a firm date for joining the metric system, it will have entered the home stretch in a trek that began back in 1864. A Weights and Measures Act set out a dual system under which Britons could use either imperial or metric measures - though there was little evidence of mass enthusiasm for metres over yards by the time the issue sprang into political life in the early 1960s. In 1965, Harold Wilson's government decided to go metric, although not much headway had been made by the time Edward Heath led Britain into the Common Market in the 1970s.

When Parliament adopted the EC Act in 1972, it in effect agreed to the principle of metrification along with it. Again there was little immediate sign of any actual changeover. When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, she was determined to bring any move towards metrification to a halt, sparking an EU directove declaring the metric system compulsory.

In 1994, under John Major, a parliamentary committee endorsed a ministerial measure, finally giving legal teeth to the changeover commitment.

In British legal terms, the death knell for the imperial system probably sounded in 2001, when a market trader named Steven Thoburn lost his court battle to continue labelling his bananas in pounds and ounces. Thorburn's status as hero of the imperial lobby saw him christened with the nickname Metric Martyr, but earlier this year he died of a heart attack aged just 39.

District Judge Bruce Morgan, in delivering his ruling on what he described as 'possibly the most famous bunch of bananas in English legal history,' concluded: 'From the moment Edward Heath signed the [European] treaty he also agreed to the eventual demise of the imperial system.'>>

This is good evidence that Britain should never have put up with the EU's nonsense from the beginning. The proverb is correct. Once Britain started cooperating with the EU's regulations, it basically acknowledged that the EU has the authority to tell it what measurements to use, so now it will be very difficult to argue otherwise.

If you join a club, you accept its rules.

It is about time! But, it should have been done a long time ago. I believe Britain will comply, albeit kicking and screaming, or else be forced into leaving the EU. But Britain knows leaving their EU will spell the end of Britain. Scotland and Wales will leave the UK, rejoin the EU as independent countries. They will complete the metrication process, and adopt the euro. Northern Ireland will be annexed to Ireland and do the same.

The remnant of England will fall into chaos and be rescued by the EU, reenter the the union, and be metricated and join the euro as well.

Britain can not escape its fate.

From the Times on Line article:

The approach was made in the past few weeks by the commission, which says it has been lobbied by unnamed parties to raise the issue. It has also specified other uses of imperial measures — from pints in pubs to inches used in measuring clothes — due for abolition.


It seems the EU Commission is acting on support from within the UK and not acting alone. I highly doubt the EU Commission would tackle this issue alone unless it had allies on the inside. This is like a two front attack, one front on the outside and one on the inside.

The first thing that needs to be done is to remove any laws that prohibit metric in any application. Thus allowing metric road signs and litre glasses in pubs. This may be the first step.

ARM members should be arrested and made to restore all signs they vandalized back to metric or pay the cost to do so.

Re: Britain gave an inch. Now the EU wants 1.609km August 28 2005, 2:35 PM

DJ

From the Times on Line article:

The approach was made in the past few weeks by the commission, which says it has been lobbied by unnamed parties to raise the issue. It has also specified other uses of imperial measures — from pints in pubs to inches used in measuring clothes — due for abolition.


metre
If EU efforts to accelerate metrication lack diplomacy it will be counter productive. It is up to the British parliament to make decisions how and when it hould be completed. That surely must include informing and convincing voters that quick and total metrication is to everybody's advantage.

I'm sure they know what they are doing. As I said, the EU Commission is acting in conjunction with allies inside the UK.

On the other hand, maybe they want the UK to resist and are using the metric issue to force the UK out of the EU. This way they can readmit Scotland and Wales as independents, bring about full metrication and the euro to them without England interfering. Northern Ireland will be annexed to Ireland and be brought under the metric directives and the euro from Dublin. A weak and broken England will eventually beg to be re-admitted and complete the metrication process then as well as join the euro.


Sometimes you have to enter the house via the back door.

<<But Britain knows leaving their EU will spell the end of Britain. Scotland and Wales will leave the UK, rejoin the EU as independent countries. They will complete the metrication process, and adopt the euro. Northern Ireland will be annexed to Ireland and do the same.
>>

You keep saying this, but do you have the SLIGHEST evidence there is any significant interest in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland of leaving the UK, joining the EU independently, going metric, and adopting Euro? Sounds absurdly far fetched to me, but I don't read all the UK news.

Northen Ireland and Scotland apparently have some autonomy now on traffic laws. I don't see them metricating.

Do they have enough autonomy on traffic laws to metricate?

It is just my opinion, I don't need to have any evidence.

If there wasn't even the slimmest chance of some people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland wanting them out of the UK, then it would be so much easier for the UK to just leave the EU. The fear that such an occurrence can happen is one of many reasons keeping the UK from leaving. The breaking up of the UK would make the UK more manageable by the EU so why wouldn't it be considered?

Dear BWMA,

Will you be askng the Observer to correct this statement:

"Thorburn's status as hero of the imperial lobby saw him christened with the nickname Metric Martyr, but earlier this year he died of a heart attack aged just 39."

If memory serves he died in 2004, and his name is Thoburn not Thorburn.

Symptomatic of this whole article I think in its shoddy inaccuracies.

I seriously don't think that the EU would force the UK to leave over the issue of metrication. Remember that the EU was willing to allow Britain to stay without adopting the euro, and money is a much bigger issue than measurement. The whole idea seems extremely far-fetched to me, and probably to most Britons too.

Re: Britain gave an inch. Now the EU wants 1.609km August 28 2005, 3:26 PM

DJ
I'm sure they know what they are doing. As I said, the EU Commission is acting in conjunction with allies inside the UK.

metre
Here is an article dealing with Britain's reluctance to finish metrication.

-----------------------------------------------------------
UK under EU pressure for full converstion to metric. By George Parker in Brussels and Ben Hall in London
Published: August 28 2005 21:39 | Last updated: August 28 2005 21:39 Britain......

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/558a3508-1803-11da-a14b-00000e2511c8.html

They can all say they won't now, but who knows what will be agreed behind the scenes.

Danny is truly one bizzare member of the human race.
I suggest that the American posters here continue to disregard the absurd notion that an UK leaving the EU will somehow see the UK split followed by an Iraq style military invasion to force English people to talk in metric and use the euro.

I'd truly like to know the opinions of proper pro-metric posters in regards to the very strange "Danny".

BTW - I had to put him right on the USMA boards when he started going on about the Scottish pound being different and thus rejected in Scotland for the Euro! (I can also tell you that I had a few private emails from USMA list members thanking me for putting him right!)

It actually branches off to another interesting debate and one that always confuses me. And that is why English nationalism is so small. England, if it became independant, would be a very rich country. Taxes in Wales, Scotland and NI are lower than the revenue would normally dictate from those nations. So I wonder why there is no independant notion from the English - My hunch is that Englan is the most pro-unionist nation in the UK (poss followed by Wales, NI and Scotland).

I read somewhere that if London became a country it would be the riches country in the word (with some amazing multiple of the next country in the list).

So although Danny's daft nonsense is one straight out of the loony asylum it does throw up some very interesting debates from it (but only if you take it from a factual "real life as it is" point of view that has at least one ounce of truth to it).

============

<<However, a spokesman for the Department for Transport said there remained 'no reason to change road signs in the foreseeable future'>>

That's certainly a shift in policy from the "when most people are metric educated" one.

Quite a lot of publications have carried this story about the EU intervention over the mile and pint.

The government have yet to make a proper statement of their position. The ones quoted are spurious and don't come from anyone of any seniority.

However, the Commissioner to whom the story has been attributed, Gunter Verheugen, has said he doesn't want stir up trouble in the UK.

I think it's something that has been picked by the press against his intentions.

The government are bound to play this down and deny any plans. They probably don't in fact have any so it's quite truthful.

However this does serve as a reminder that ultimately the UK government do have a legal obligation to announce a date for phasing out imperial measures for road signs and the pint for draught beer and milk in returnable containers. The acre is part of it but since the land registry have already moved to hectares it isn't really an issue.

The derogation allowing the UK to continue with selected imperial units for those named purposes says that it will happen at a date to be fixed by the member state. That means sometime they'll have to do it but "never" is not an option.

over a third of a century down the line and still no move.

I think I'll look up "derogation" ;-)

UKMA says they did not approach the EU Commission, although they agree the UK needs to finish up metrication.

Press release from their site:
http://www.ukma.org.uk/press/releases/pr050831.htm
<<
Metric group has NOT contacted EU Commission - but says British Government should sort out mess.

The UK Metric Association (UKMA) has had no contact with the European Commission in the last 12 months. Our only ever contact was in July 2004 when we sent copies of our publication "A very British mess" to the previous Commission.

The European Commission has no power to require the UK to name an early date for phasing out pints of beer or miles on road signs (although it is entitled to ask for a progress report). UKMA has therefore not lobbied the Commission on this point. However, we do believe the British national interest requires that the current wasteful "two systems" muddle should be ended as soon as possible, and that the UK should become fully metric within this decade.

It is of course open to any citizen of the EU (including British citizens) to approach the European Commission for help with any problem which their own national government has failed to tackle and which falls within the competence of the EU - for example, the failure of the UK authorities to enforce the Price Marking Order 2004.

UKMA Chairman, Robin Paice, said: "It would be better if the British government would stop denying the problem and act to resolve the current untenable situation - without any prompting from the Commission."

>>

I believe more recent events have proved the UKMA lied.

Wow am I surprised!

;-)

Well, drag out the evidence.

If they did, then issuing a press release, and getting caught is pretty dumb and damaging. Better to just keep quiet.

http://www.bwmaonline.com/UKMA%20exposed.htm

--athough with a website name like that they might be biased ;-)

Just an idea, but.....

What if the EC was contacted by a private individual (His initials might have been RP) in his capacity as a private citizen of the EU.

Note that it states within the press release

"It is of course open to any citizen of the EU (including British citizens) to approach the European Commission"

Note also that the DfT letter states

"As the complaint by the UKMA director"

It doesn't say that UKMA made the complaint - it refers to a specific individual who also happens to be the Director of UKMA

UKMA could then quite happily issue a statement stating that they did not contact the EC - because technically, they didn't.

If my suspicion is correct, UKMA are telling the truth, but not the whole truth. It's more than a bit underhand, but seems to be a common enough tactic on both sides!

And I reckon Wales should have won on Saturday too.

Didn't see it Stimp - but I hear that England were poor. Pub I was in pre-Italy match was showing "Great Scotland victories at Wembley" video. It's quite a long tape.

Back to the subject at hand though - I'm surprised that no-one has made any response:-

Are the extreme pro-metric side embarrassed by the underhand actions of UKMA?

Are all of the imperial side embarrassed by the accusations above that "recent events have "PROVED" (my emphasis) the UKMA lied"?

BWMA states

"While some of us may consider secret lobbying by a public body to be unethical, we have to accept that UKMA has the right to do so"

Firstly, UKMA are not a public body. Tony continually states that they consist of "three-and-a-half men, one woman and a dog"

Probably a similar-sized membership to BWMA, ARM, CMS etc.

If the FOI Act applied to BWMA, I would consider asking them to produce a copy of the most recent lobbying letter to TSD's. I note that no mention of this has been made in "News in Brief"

I would also ask that the letters (from BWMA to TSD's) predating the Thoburn conviction be made public. I believe that these letters actually encouraged the TSD's to prosecute!


























Note to all

See how easy it is to give a truthful (but totally misleading) version of events.

BWMA & UKMA are both equally guilty.

<<<BWMA & UKMA are both equally guilty.>>>

I would dispute that.

although I agree with their principle aim, I'm no great fan of UKMA, but they strike me as a much more credible and honest organisation than BWMA.

re (Andy): "...although I agree with their principal aim, I'm no great fan of UKMA, but they strike me as a much more credible and honest organisation than BWMA".

REPLY: Andy, have you ever considered why BWMA is happy to allow its critics to post openly on its website, while UKMA doesn't on theirs? What might that tell you about the two organisations?

Andy - you must concede Tony's comments there!

I've always seen BWMA as entirely truthful and open to criticism - and boy do they attract it on a public forum! They get the polite "metric perspective" arguments but they also get the nutbag brigade (12" metric records, 500ml pints, Dr Phelps foot binding witches who can't speak an obsolete welsh language, a poster who has several names, Mr "anti-yank", Imperial users are child abusers, etc etc etc).

If I tried half the tactics that this nutbag brigade tries here but on the USMA site I'd be kicked off in an instant. Fortunately the USMA chaps are more likely to kick Danny off than me!

I've said this once and I'll say it again - I've got more time for USMA than I have for UKMA.

And Lord Howe as a spokesman? Come on!

Also until a while back www.bwma.co.uk would get you re-directed to a metric site. What does that tell you?

<<Firstly, UKMA are not a public body>> I thought that because they have "association" status both they (and BWMA) are public bodies of sorts. Like charities? I might be wrong. Some of us are cable of being that.

In the way the organisations are run, I prefer BWMA - hence I am here posting on the site rather than on UKMA's. But it still bases its whole campaign on myths and relies heavily on bending the truth.

eg. "prosecuted for selling a pound of bananas" rather than "prosecuted for refusing to use legal scales and giving a per kilo price in addition to the pound one"

Basically the aims of the two organisations are the same - enforcement of their favoured system. The difference is that UKMA make no secret of the fact that they advocate compulsion, and they make no attempt to be populist. Their aim is to lobby the government and the government is far more likely to take them seriously.

<<In the way the organisations are run, I prefer BWMA - hence I am here posting on the site rather than on UKMA's.>>

Isn't this because you CAN'T post on their site?


<<Their aim is to lobby the government and the government is far more likely to take them seriously.>>

I'm sure that BWMA lobby too.
Regadring UKMA though - how many politicians (when faced with no huge majority) are going to concede with the demands of a minority group out of kilter with the popular thought?

<<<Isn't this because you CAN'T post on their site?>>>

To be honest, I've never tried! I found this site by accident. I've had a look at the USMA board and it looks to me like just people insulting each other.

<<<Regadring UKMA though - how many politicians (when faced with no huge majority) are going to concede with the demands of a minority group out of kilter with the popular thought?>>>

I would bet that most politicians (across a range of parties) agree that we should complete metrication anyway.

But as you say, in the current situation they won't risk anything.

<<REPLY: Andy, have you ever considered why BWMA is happy to allow its critics to post openly on its website, while UKMA doesn't on theirs? What might that tell you about the two organisations?

>>

Among other things, it might tell me that one has a bulletin board for discussion, and the other doesn't.

The implication that one doesn't allow certain types of discussion, when in fact it doesn't allow ANY discussion, by virtue of not being a bulletin board, just might possibly be a sign of a very misleading argument.

What an infantile belief, BWMA allows people to criticise them.
Without opponents there are no discussions and no advertising for their cause.

UKMA does the same, or used to???

re (metre): "What an infantile belief, BWMA allows people to criticise them. Without opponents there are no discussions and no advertising for their cause. UKMA does the same, or used to???"

REPLY: Er, well, no, UKMA didn't use to, never has in fact. They have never had an open discussion board. One of their three-and-a-half men and woman acts as a censor!

In rough terms, the BWMA's approach to opposing views can be described as democratic, whilst the UKMA's can be described as totalitarian.

Which reflects the different nature of the two organisations.

When have you heard BWMA call for bottles of wine to be labelled in pints? Or car engine sizes?

Answer - never - which gives to the lie to those who misleadingly claim, even on these boards, that there is some equivalence between BWMA and UKMA in their approaches to the crucial issue of freedom of choice.

Compare that with the authoritarian mindset of UKMA and other allies and supporters, who won't be satisfied until every trace of customary measures has been permanently erased.

A sinister mindset that doesn't welcome honest debate

But UKMA are honest in that they propose banning imperial measurements. That was my point.

BWMA claims to support freedom of choice, but support a greengrocer who refused to label in metric AS WELL, and support the banning of metric on road signs (and pedestrian signs etc)

The freedom of choice argument is all very well, but you can't just apply it where it suits you.

Andy - Roads, Safety issue!

which is why I specifically mentioned "pedestrian signs etc"

besides the argument doesn't hold up. Of course you can't go round having speed limits in different measuremetns but are you telling me that a sign saying "humps - 200 metres" presents a safety issue?

re (Andy): "are you telling me that a sign saying '"humps - 200 metres'" presents a safety issue?"

REPLY: One sign on its own, a very minor safety issue.

But a big legal issue.

And of course if metric signs were allowed to proliferate, it would certainly cause confusion to motorists, which is why the Department of Transport is against gradual metrication.

A good job, then, that A.R.M. was set up to stop the spread of this metric confusion

But the fact that an ever increasing number of drivers know metres better than yards means the legal issue could work both ways.

<<
But a big legal issue.
>>

It will also be a very big legal issue if a lorry driver, charged with ignoring both a weight restriction and a width restriction sign wins his case on the technicality that the sign is using unlawful symbols. Such a case will invalidate thousands of signs overnight and will create huindreds of "rat-runs".

<<
Britain gave an inch. Now the EU wants 1.609km
>>

The original saying was "Give an inch and he will take an ell". An ell is of course much less that a mile!

So why was it OK to change the unit ell to mile, but it isn't OK to change both units inch and mile to metres and kilometres.


When you think that an ell is close to a metre, it makes more sense when it is stated: "Britain gave an inch, but the EU wants a metre."

<<
BWMA claims to support freedom of choice, but support a greengrocer who refused to label in metric AS WELL, and support the banning of metric on road signs (and pedestrian signs etc)
>>

Andy, I have probably stated my response to this discrepancy about 5 or 6 times on these boards now. Yet you continue to cite it as an example to prove your point without replying to my posts. You can't just ignore information because it doesn't suit your position.

re (Andy): "...an ever increasing number of drivers know metres better than yards..."

REPLY: A few more may be becoming reasonably familiar with metres. But not many will 'know metres better than yards'. And in any case, we still have the recent survey finding (2002) that 86% want us to keep miles and yards, as against only 8% who want to switch to kilometres and metres

<<<Andy, I have probably stated my response to this discrepancy about 5 or 6 times on these boards now. Yet you continue to cite it as an example to prove your point without replying to my posts. You can't just ignore information because it doesn't suit your position.>>>

Sorry Bud, there is only so much you can say on this subject without going round in circles.

I know your argument - I don't buy it

<<But the fact that an ever increasing number of drivers know metres better than yards means the legal issue could work both ways.
>>

This is based on your opinion rather than hard fact.

BTW - remember my post about a sign that said "low bridge to the left 12m" that turned out to mean "metres"? How many might have taken that to mean miles? (that's in your response to the "200m" bit)

<<<This is based on your opinion rather than hard fact.>>>

Its based on listening to the way people speak.

<<<BTW - remember my post about a sign that said "low bridge to the left 12m" that turned out to mean "metres"? How many might have taken that to mean miles? >>>

Probably most. One thing I would say is that if/when the doT allows metres on signs they will have to write the word metres to avoid confusion with miles.

In fact I think if signs didn't already use the symbol 'm' for metres to mean miles, I think they would have allowed metres long ago.

<<<This is based on your opinion rather than hard fact.>>>

<Its based on listening to the way people speak.>

Not going there.

<<<Not going there.>>>

A wise move. You might hear the "m" word
;-)

what - mother...... ?

TB
REPLY: Er, well, no, UKMA didn't use to, never has in fact. They have never had an open discussion board. One of their three-and-a-half men and woman acts as a censor!

metre
I do appreciate your gallant defence of the BWMA, but I am a bit more cynical. In my opinion both can be chided for deliberate omissions and distortions. On balance, I think UKMA is more factual, which is of course much easier if one defends sensible units.

And so the last post will definitely be deleted, yes?

Can anyone see the irony in the old man's post?

<<
Sorry Bud, there is only so much you can say on this subject without going round in circles.

I know your argument - I don't buy it
>>

That's fine, Andy. I know you don't buy it. But why don't you try to refute it?

<<<That's fine, Andy. I know you don't buy it. But why don't you try to refute it? >>>

I'm sure I've done that as many times as you've posted it.

Andy, could you either link me to your reply or copy and paste it here? Thank you.