Received by email:

"I would like to make some comments about international trade. If I were a business in the UK doing trade with the world and 95 percent of it used the metric system I'd have my products in metric values. I would not want to have to print two packages one with metric values and one with both imperial and metric for the UK only. In Canada packaged foods have been metric only for many years. Dairy products are metric only, if you buy a jug of milk it's 4 liters and no imperial labelling. Soft drinks are totally metric and have been for many years. Even in the US there are some states that allow metric labelling only. A couple of months ago my wife bought a pre packaged frozen dinner imported from the US the label was in metric only. I don't believe they would make a package for Canada only with just metric labels since Canada would make up about ten percent of their market compared with their sales in the US".

<<
Even in the US there are some states that allow metric labelling only.
>>

But there is a federal law requiring both imperial and metric, and it explicitly states that it trumps all state laws regarding labelling.

<<
A couple of months ago my wife bought a pre packaged frozen dinner imported from the US the label was in metric only. I don't believe they would make a package for Canada only with just metric labels since Canada would make up about ten percent of their market compared with their sales in the US"
>>

Oh yes they would. I once e-mailed a company that labeled their product in metric first and then imperial, instead of the opposite which is standard in the US, and they e-mailed back explaining that they do that for their import bottles but sometimes end up having to sell them here. I think it was a bottle of honey.

"If I were a business in the UK doing trade with the world and 95 percent of it used the metric system I'd have my products in metric values. I would not want to have to print two packages one with metric values and one with both imperial and metric for the UK only. "

So what would be wrong with using the dual-labeling for all markets, domestic and export? Why do some (not all) on the anti-Imperial side want to eradicate Imperial measures from labels completely?

In practice, there are quite probably other labeling requirements specific to certain places that would dictate the use of different labels anyway. (Unless you are selling something so big that the labels can be made large enough to include every detail needed for each country you export to!)

PaulEOS wrote

<<
So what would be wrong with using the dual-labeling for all markets, domestic and export? Why do some (not all) on the anti-Imperial side want to eradicate Imperial measures from labels completely?
>>

You would have a problem selling liquid products in the UK, US and Australian markets using dual lables only. The AUssies would expect to see metric units (and might tolerate fl. oz, pints or gallons), in the UK it would be illegal to to US fl oz, pints or gallons while in the US it wuold probably be illegal to use UK fl oz, pints or gallons. In order to cover these three markets, you would need to use triple-labeling!

"and might tolerate fl. oz, pints or gallons"

Tolerate?

Is it really that emotional?

<<<Is it really that emotional?>>>

It obviously is an emotional issue, or else we would have just "gone metric" 40 years ago without any fuss.

I cannot speak for Australia, but in South africa it was illegal in the mid 1970's to have imperial units on any packaging of any products being sold in South Africa. This was done to encourage the coutnry to "Think metric".

It was also illegal to sell any measuring devices that were calibrated in Imperial units. I believe that similar laws were passed in Australia.

"I cannot speak for Australia, but in South africa it was illegal in the mid 1970's to have imperial units on any packaging of any products being sold in South Africa. This was done to encourage the coutnry to "Think metric". "

Consider the international standing that SA had during that period.
What you have quoted sits very comfortably in that state and the way that state controlled people.

Martin: "You would have a problem selling liquid products in the UK, US and Australian markets using dual lables only."

That's a valid point, and labels probably would start to get a bit cramped with three sets of units!

Due to the other different labeling requirements between America and Europe though, most likely these two markets would need different labels anyway.

Martin: "I cannot speak for Australia, but in South africa it was illegal in the mid 1970's to have imperial units on any packaging of any products being sold in South Africa......

It was also illegal to sell any measuring devices that were calibrated in Imperial units."

A contact of mine from a technical forum told me that when he lived in South Africa customs actually confiscated a 6-inch ruler that was sent as part of a set (part of a children's school set, as I recall). This is REALLY becoming totalitarian.

A while back I had a 100 ft. Stanley tape sent to me from the States. Would anyone here actually be in favor of it being illegal for me import such a tape?

The solution is for every country to allow all systems of measurement that are commonly used, and require whichever one their people are most familiar with.

Bud,

The law does not prevent people from *using* whatever units of measure they wish.

UK law does however prevent preople from *trading* in unauthorised units or using unauthorised measuring equipment. I don't know about the US, but in the UK, every set of bathroom scales has the wording "Not legal for trade".

Thus, if I were using a set of bathroom scales for trade purposes, I could be prosecuted. THis point was brought home to me when I visited my chidren's school on an open day. Seeing some rather poorly maintained kitchen spring scales, I took a measuring beaker, weighed it, filled it to the 500 ml mark and reweighed it. According to the scales, 500 ml of water weighed 400 g. CLearly the scales were very badly calibrated. Fortunately they were not being used for trade.

Did you call the police just in case?

They could question the children to find out whether any of the teachers said any illegal measurement words and have the up for child abuse.

Hmmm, deja vu?

Steve,

You are being rather childish.

One of the teachers did notice what I was doing. One of the problems faced by all schools is a lack of funding. I have been a school governor and have also been on a school PTA so I am fully aware of why the equipment was of poor quality.

What did happen however was that I was noticed and when I made further complaints about other things (such as badly prepared school reports), notice was taken. (I did not just complain, I did my bit on the PTA to help raise money for the school).

Be honest with me.

As school governor, or within your powers through the PTA, have you ever been constructive in persuading the educational aspects of that school to avoid teaching imperial measures?

A simple yes or no will do but please - for the sake of consitency - be honest.

The issue never arose.

Martin: "The law does not prevent people from *using* whatever units of measure they wish."

But isn't the law going to change in 2010 to make it illegal to even DISPLAY a price per pound or per pint?

I think most people would say that that most definitely *IS* trying to prevent people from using the units they wish.

"in the UK, every set of bathroom scales has the wording "Not legal for trade". "

Is this a fairly recent thing? I have to confess to not examining bathroom scales that closely, but I don't recall ever seeing such labeling.

<<
The law does not prevent people from *using* whatever units of measure they wish.
>>

I was referring to labelling. (Just in case you couldn't tell.) It may be legal right now but I heard it's going to change. Then again, I've heard governments say a lot of things that they don't end up doing.


<<
UK law does however prevent preople from *trading* in unauthorised units or using unauthorised measuring equipment.
>>

That's just my point... if the UK (and all other countries) authorized all commonly-used systems for trade, everyone would be happy. Businesses wouldn't have to do different packaging for different countries, consumers would see units that they knew, the pro-metrics would be delighted at the natural economic forces that would metricate Britain to the extent required by the international market, and the BWMA supporters would get to use their own units as much as they wished.

<<
I don't know about the US, but in the UK, every set of bathroom scales has the wording "Not legal for trade".
>>

Oh... I always thought that meant something like "not legal to export." Now I know.




By the way, should the government prosecute someone involved in a trade transaction if the other party involved is satisfied with it? If so, why?

Bud wrote

<<
That's just my point... if the UK (and all other countries) authorized all commonly-used systems for trade, everyone would be happy. Businesses wouldn't have to do different packaging for different countries, consumers would see units that they knew, the pro-metrics would be delighted at the natural economic forces that would metricate Britain to the extent required by the international market, and the BWMA supporters would get to use their own units as much as they wished.
>>

The EU is all about harmonising labeling. Since there are many languages in Europe, pictures and symbols are frequenty use. For example, a picture of a thermometer with the lettering 5C - 50C has an obvious meaning. Since degrees C are the internationally recognised unit of temperature, that is the value on the carton. Similarly, weights on cartons are in kg (or g for small cartons). This again is international.

BTW, if you visit http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/el/consleg/pdf/1980/el_1980L0181_do_001.pdf you will be able to see the EU metrication directive in Greek. Read through it. You will probably not understand much of it, but when you get to the symbols for units of measure, they will make sense.



<<
By the way, should the government prosecute someone involved in a trade transaction if the other party involved is satisfied with it? If so, why?
>>

In practice, the customer does not have a say in which scalepan is used and is unable to independently verify the scales. It is not unknown for traders to use dodgy scales. It is the job of the Trading Standards Officers to ensure that the scales are up to scratch. If the scales are not up to scratch, the TSO's can prosecute.

I have a digital LCD scale for the bathroom that even measures body fat.

There are no stickers or labels on it that talk about the legality of trade.

Bud: "if the UK (and all other countries) authorized all commonly-used systems for trade, everyone would be happy. Businesses wouldn't have to do different packaging for different countries, consumers would see units that they knew, the pro-metrics would be delighted at the natural economic forces that would metricate Britain to the extent required by the international market, and the BWMA supporters would get to use their own units as much as they wished. "

That's a very logical, common-sense approach to the situation, and the one which I would like to see adopted. Unfortunately, common-sense and government seldom go together. ;)

I doubt that some pro-metric people would be happy anyway. They don't want to see metric introduced by natural selection to the extent required by overseas markets. They think we should be forced to use it in all fields, whether we want to or not.

Martin: "The EU is all about harmonising labeling."

Part of the objection that many of have to the EU is that this whole corrupt system is trying to harmonize just about *everything* in our lives. They are pushing for fewer differences between *countries* in Europe than exist between different *states* in the U.S.A. But I digress.....

Bud: "By the way, should the government prosecute someone involved in a trade transaction if the other party involved is satisfied with it? If so, why?"

No they shouldn't. If someone believes they have been given short measure (whether it be 15 oz. instead of 1 lb. or 450g instead of 500g) then they should have recourse by official means. But if both parties are happy to complete the transaction in pounds, kilograms, or any other mutually agreed unit, then the government should stay out of it.

Martin: "In practice, the customer does not have a say in which scalepan is used and is unable to independently verify the scales..... It is the job of the Trading Standards Officers to ensure that the scales are up to scratch."

That is true no matter what units of measurement are in use. Trading standards verified the accuracy of scales in lb./oz. for decades. Why can they not continue to do so?

PaulEOS wrote
<<
That is true no matter what units of measurement are in use. Trading standards verified the accuracy of scales in lb./oz. for decades. Why can they not continue to do so?
>>

The descision was taken in 1965 that the default system of measure in the United Kingdom would be the metric system instead of the Imperial system. We have been moving in that direction slowly ever since.

Hence why all the roads are in metric!

ooh

and don't forget all those clothes shops, hifi shops, car shops, butchers greengrocers tesco etc etc.

(oh and a minor point: "how people talk")

<<<That's a very logical, common-sense approach to the situation, and the one which I would like to see adopted. Unfortunately, common-sense and government seldom go together. ;)>>>

It is this type of "common sense" that shows why we need government regulations

The roads are metric. What do you think the little blue pillars are on the sides of the motorways?

The grocery shops are metric - your cornflakes comein metric sized boxes don't they.

The butchers, greengrocers and farmers are metric - check the wholesale proces of food in your paper.

The building industry is metric, so is the engineering industry.

In fact, the only thing is Britain that is not metric and which is not controlled by international agreement are things that directly affect the man in the street.

"The roads are metric. What do you think the little blue pillars are on the sides of the motorways?"

I believe they send info back to "trafficmaster" so that the news can tell the speeds in mph of the cars.
Also - "traffic lights 200yds" - a "30" in a red cirle - mettric? Also the yellow circle by the motorway that has red quadrants progressivley (in qtrs) going around it that is spaced EXACLTLY 1/4m apart? Metric?

"The grocery shops are metric -"

All of them? Really - All the local ones I've been to use a metric measure called the "lb" then!

"your cornflakes comein metric sized boxes don't they."

Erm - do I have a choice of how much I can have from the box?

"The butchers, greengrocers and farmers are metric - check the wholesale proces of food in your paper."

Total rubbish

"The building industry is metric, so is the engineering industry."

Now pop into an estate agent and get some house brochures!

"In fact, the only thing is Britain that is not metric and which is not controlled by international agreement are things that directly affect the man in the street. "


I think I've proved my point!

Steve H wrote

<<
"The roads are metric. What do you think the little blue pillars are on the sides of the motorways?"

I believe they send info back to "trafficmaster" so that the news can tell the speeds in mph of the cars.
>>

I suggest that you visit http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Roads.htm
where you can see a photograph of the posts that I am talking about.


<<
"The grocery shops are metric -"

All of them? Really - All the local ones I've been to use a metric measure called the "lb" then!
>>
... including packets of cornflakes?



<<
"The butchers, greengrocers and farmers are metric - check the wholesale proces of food in your paper."

Total rubbish
>>

Todays "Times" quotes futures prices for Barley and Wheat in £/t (tonne) and average livetock prices in p/kg lw. (lw = liveweight). In my book these are the wholesale prices and they are in metric.


<<
"The building industry is metric, so is the engineering industry."

Now pop into an estate agent and get some house brochures!
>>

The glossy brochures that they give you are written by estate agents - a profession that is known for being economical with the truth. If you look at the actual house plans that were drawn up by the architect and given to the builder, you will only see metric measure.


<<
"In fact, the only thing is Britain that is not metric and which is not controlled by international agreement are things that directly affect the man in the street. "

I think I've proved my point!
>>

I think that I have proved my point that you are successfully being duped.

"I suggest that you visit http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Roads.htm
where you can see a photograph of the posts that I am talking about."

Half the photos are missing - I couldn't see it.
I think the blue posts are for traffic master though - check their website.


"... including packets of cornflakes?"

Erm - again - how do I choose how much of the carton I buy?



"Todays "Times" quotes futures prices for Barley and Wheat in £/t (tonne) and average livetock prices in p/kg lw. (lw = liveweight). In my book these are the wholesale prices and they are in metric."

Although I cannot comment on the particular item - do you honestly believe that farms up and down the land have ditched imperial?


"The glossy brochures that they give you are written by estate agents - a profession that is known for being economical with the truth."

Nice try - the figures ARE accurate.
Take a measure with you and see!

" If you look at the actual house plans that were drawn up by the architect and given to the builder, you will only see metric measure. "

Erm - not mine


"I think that I have proved my point that you are successfully being duped."

My God you're right!

And after all this time - I didn't realise!!!

I will make it my life long mission to go around telling people that "m" does not mean minutes, miles or millions and I shall make a point of blaming Margaret Thatcher!

I'm convinced now - UK IS METRIC!







er, could someone remove the sticky tape of my eyes now?

hello?


hmmmm

<<
BTW, if you visit http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/el/consleg/pdf/1980/el_1980L0181_do_001.pdf you will be able to see the EU metrication directive in Greek. Read through it. You will probably not understand much of it, but when you get to the symbols for units of measure, they will make sense.
>>


What good would understanding the units of measure do if I can't understand the rest of it?

Similarly, if I walk into a store in another country and I can understand the net weight label, thanks to some international agreement, but I can't understand what the product is because I can't read the language, what good does having a common system of measurement do?

Excellent point Bud.

You won't find the EU pressing for a single "harmonized" language, yet to most people this is a far greater barrier to "free trade" than different units of measurement.

Why has the notion of introducing a single trade language for the EU not yet been proposed?

Is it because even the Brussels bureaucrats realize that such a proposal would REALLY alienate the majority of people throughout Europe?

Maybe. Or perhaps it's because there's really only one sensible choice as to what that single language should be.

Bud wrote

<<
Similarly, if I walk into a store in another country and I can understand the net weight label, thanks to some international agreement, but I can't understand what the product is because I can't read the language, what good does having a common system of measurement do?
>>

Bud, it is not too difficult. Two years ago I started a contract whereby I would spend two months in France and two months in Italy. I first heard about the contract one Monday. By the following Monday I had driven to the South of France and started working. During that week, plans changed and the following weekend I drove to Naples (Southern Italy). I therefore had to drive to Italy with no preparation - I could not buy English language guides ot Italy in France. However, understanding the system of measurement in Italy (it is the same as in France, Germany, Netherlands and most other countries of the world) helped me tremendously.

Goinging into a pizza parlour and pointing at a piece of pizza is fairly international, especially if the sign above it said "3000 lira/100g" (It would now say "€1.60/100g"). I knew exactly how much I had to pay.

Moreover, a bit of common sense can also help tremendously and only worrying about the langauge and nopt the language and system of measure makes thoings easier.

"By the way, should the government prosecute someone involved in a trade transaction if the other party involved is satisfied with it? If so, why?"

It may be that, whilst the other party is satisfied, many of us might not have been if we had been the other party. Therefore, the Government must ensure common standards.

"In fact, the only thing is Britain that is not metric and which is not controlled by international agreement are things that directly affect the man in the street."

This is the essential point, because the philosophy of Thatcher, and most Conservatives, is that Government should not do things that the public will notice. Tangibile and real results which we can all see are not generally favoured, and the lack of them is what leads to much cynicism amongst the electorate. Metrication for the "'man' in the street" is dangerously noticeable and progressive, and isn't the sort of thing which 'responsible' governments wish to engage in.

"Why has the notion of introducing a single trade language for the EU not yet been proposed?

Is it because even the Brussels bureaucrats realize that such a proposal would REALLY alienate the majority of people throughout Europe?

Maybe. Or perhaps it's because there's really only one sensible choice as to what that single language should be."

There is generally a single language for trade and it is English. Others change to the most widely applied. Metrication results in our changing to the system of measurement which is most widely applied, namely the SI.

"Moreover, a bit of common sense can also help tremendously and only worrying about the langauge and nopt the language and system of measure makes thoings easier."

Exactly; if a label says 'Leche 500ml' then at least if we are dim enough not to recognise that it is a carton of milk, we know how much there is.

Ross: "It may be that, whilst the other party is satisfied, many of us might not have been if we had been the other party. Therefore, the Government must ensure common standards."

How is the fact that somebody else might not have been satisfied really a factor? That person was NOT a party to the transaction which actually took place.

If you're going to try to legislate for making every single person who MIGHT have been a party the transaction happy, nobody would ever be able to sell anything. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "You can't please all of the people all of time."

What about those people who MIGHT have been party to a transaction but were unhappy with the fact that they could not conduct their business in Imperial? How is that any different?

Ross: "There is generally a single language for trade and it is English. Others change to the most widely applied. Metrication results in our changing to the system of measurement which is most widely applied, namely the SI."

The difference being that the use of English as a common business language is not being imposed by intimidation and threats of massive fines. It is by common consent of those using English, with no legal penalties for conducting business in some other language.

On the principle that everybody should adjust to the most-used system, would you accept a law stating that all business throughout the EU must be conducted in English?

If an official in a French market overheard a trader saying "Vos pommes, Monsieur. C'est deux Euros cinquante s'il vous plait," should he be empowered by law to drag that trader to court for daring to speak French to one of his own countrymen?

Before one starts making stupid siggerstions like those made above, one should examine how EU directoves are actually made.

Step 1 - The EU Commission proposes a directive.

Step 2 - The Council of Ministers examien the proposal and fine tunes it.

Step 3 - The European Parliament accepts or rejects the directive, but cannot change it. If it is rejected, it goes back to the Council of Ministers.

It should be remembered that the Council of Ministers is actually a number of committees - one for FInance, one for Transport etc. The members of the Finance COmmittee are the Minsters for Finance of the various EU member states, the members of the Transport COmmittee are the Minsters for Transport of the various EU member states and so on.

The EU Parliament is of course elected by the population of the EU member states themselves.

If a stupid (or unworkable) proposal comes from the Commission, it is quickly snuffed out by either the COuncil of the Parliament. For example, the stupid suggestion of the previous write that everybody would have to speak the same language would never get past both the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, not even on a simple majority.

<<
For example, the stupid suggestion of the previous write that everybody would have to speak the same language would never get past both the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, not even on a simple majority.
>>


I wouldn't be so sure...
They would do it gradually. First, one language would be required as a second language in all school curricula across the continent. Then, after everyone had learned that language, all transnational commerce would have to be conducted in that language. As companies grew and crossed national lines (i.e., common market), that language would slowly start taking over more and more matters and everyone would be fluent in it. Once everyone was fluent in it, I'm sure the aforementioned proposal would pass without difficulty.

Bud wrote

<<
First, one language would be required
>>

Who exactly would "require" one language to be used?

The EU Commission consists of 19 or 20 Commissioners, at least one and no more than two from any one country. I doubt that any commissioner would allow any language, other than his own to be forced upon Europe as the lingua franca and any Commissioner who tried ot force his own languager upon the rest of EUrope would certainly get shouted down. The Commission certainly would not "require" one particular language to be used.

The same applies to the European Parliament.

The same applies to the Council of Ministers.

Bud, where exactly do you get these crazy notions - they are even crazier than the most extreme bit trash that come out of some of the UK's anti-EU press.

In that case, why did the Commissioners from England and Ireland allow metric to be required, and why haven't they been shouted down yet?

Britian started her metrication program in 1968. The first EU directive on metrication was in 1971 - three years after Britian started her program. Britain joined the EU in 1975. By 1979 the British metrication program was all but complete. Every sector that was going to be metricated (engineering, wholesale food, building and so on) apart from the consumer industry had been metricated.

In 1979 Mrs Thatcher became prime minister. She disbanded the metricaton board (who were tasled with amongst other things ensuring that there was no profiteering as a result of metrication). In 1980, the EU revised its metrication directive and Mrs Thatcher's officals negotiated a number of opt-outs for Britain including the retention of the mile, the acre and the pint in various circumstances. The UK Government also refused to put the EU directive into UK law until 1995 (Mrs Thatcher resigned in 1991).

So there it is - Mrs Tatcher forced through a number of opt-outs, but was unable to block the entire directive as most of the areas affected had already been metricated.

"Britian started her metrication program in 1968."

I thought the Metrication Board was set up in 1965?

"Britain joined the EU in 1975."

1973.

"Mrs Thatcher's officals negotiated a number of opt-outs for Britain including the retention of the mile, the acre and the pint in various circumstances."

That is to say, Mrs Thatcher negotiated sufficient opt-outs designed to stop anyone noticing the effects of metrication.

"The UK Government also refused to put the EU directive into UK law until 1995"

I think there were other implementing regulations before that; the 1995 move was a response to the 1989 Directive.

"Mrs Thatcher resigned in 1991"

1990.

In terms of the codecision procedure in the EU, Parliament and Council have equal powers:

1. The Commission proposes a draft directive and submits it to Parliament and Council.

2. Parliament considers the draft first and decides whether to approve it; if it is rejected then the matter is concluded. It is possible for Parliament to make amendments to the text.

3. Council considers the draft and amendments and may entirely agree, in which case the act is passed. If they reject the draft then the matter is concluded. Otherwise, they will form a common position on the draft.

4. Parliament then takes the second reading of the draft by reviewing the common position and may make amendments.

5. Council considers the amendments and, if it does not agree with Parliament to any extent, a conciliation committee of the two bodies is formed which aims to agree a joint text.

6. This text is then submitted to both bodies for a simple vote of each, following which the act is either adopted or rejected.

The aim is to increase the use of this procedure through the new consititution.

Britain may have started metricating earlier, but since it was such a short amount of time earlier, I think it seems like they started metricating in anticipation of joining the EU.

Hardly - Britian had a number of false starts in metrication. A few of the false starts include:

On the 26th July 1871 Britain almost became a metric country. The government lost the Bill to make metric compulsory after two years, by only 82 votes to 77 votes

In 1904 The House of Lords unanimously voted to make metric compulsory after two years. It was claimed that the Austrian and German nations had successfully made metric.

Conflicts in Europe put further political consideration of metrication out of mind until the publication of a Government White Paper on Weights and Measures on the 10th May 1951. The 1951 White Paper was in fact the 28th Report put to Parliament during the preceeding 100 years.

Bud,

Britain decided to go metric of its own accord. The EU had nothing to do with it.

The reason Britain is still caught between the two systems is because of the shambolic way metrication has been dealt with by successive British Governments.

There is a complete lack of information regarding metrication in Britain, and as a consequence most people are not aware of the facts. All they hear about is stories in the anti-EU press about how we are being forced to go metric against our will.

If I didn't know the real story, I would be against it. Why should we change our system of measurement just because the EU wants us to?

If the people knew the truth they would be more supportive of metrication. Of course old habits die hard and people would still use imperial in everyday speech, but people are not stupid, they would see the benefits for change and get on with it.

Tony Bennett/BWMA go on about having the support of the majority of the population and admittedly with the current levels of misinformation they do. But they rely on the public not knowing the truth. As soon as that happens they will lose their support.

<<
All they hear about is stories in the anti-EU press about how we are being forced to go metric against our will.
>>

I have heard it alleged, though I cannot prove it, that certain of the press barons push an anti-EU line because they fear for their own positions should the EU take a harder line against the control of the press being concentrated in too few hands. This should be borne in mind when reading much of the anti-EU drivel in certain of the UK's newspapers.

"On the 26th July 1871 Britain almost became a metric country. The government lost the Bill to make metric compulsory after two years, by only 82 votes to 77 votes

In 1904 The House of Lords unanimously voted to make metric compulsory after two years. It was claimed that the Austrian and German nations had successfully made metric."

Due to the way our minds have been conditioned on this subject, the above seems surprising but is actually entirely true.

<<
Britain decided to go metric of its own accord. The EU had nothing to do with it.
>>

How do you know? If they were doing it because of outside pressure, would they admit it?

May I refer readers to a report by Jim Humble OBE, last director of the UK Metrication Board. The report can be found on http://www.ukma.org.uk/press/humble.html

Virtually every country in the world has gone metric. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada.. Who pressured them into going metric? Was that the EU as well?

I am sure Britain would be a lot more metric now if we had never been a member of the EU.

"Britain joined the EU in 1975."
"1973."

No, we did not. We joined the EEC in 1973. The insidious way that the European Economic Community became the European Community, which in turn become the European Union, shows the agenda that has been in place all along.

The 1975 referendum was on whether we should REMAIN in the EEC. Had the people been told that in 25 years we would be subject to thousands of petty, bureaucratic rules and regulations emanating from Brussels, aided and abetted by Whitehall, that we would have no control over our own waters, etc., then there's no doubt that the result would have been a definite "No."

As it was, former Prime Minister Edward Heath and his cronies reassured the people that there was to be no loss of control, that we were simply joining a trading agreement, and that no nation could override the wishes of another.

By Heath's own admissions in recent years, this WAS NOTHING BUT A BLATANT LIE.

Britain may have decided to adopt metric before joining what was then the EEC, but the EEC/EC/EU has certainly played a role.

Isn't the argument in the Steve Thorburn case based around the judge's arbitrary decision that the 1972 act taking us into the EEC can override a 1985 weights & measures act?

"No, we did not. We joined the EEC in 1973. The insidious way that the European Economic Community became the European Community, which in turn become the European Union, shows the agenda that has been in place all along."

Let's be pedantic then: the EC did not 'become' the EU, the EU is built on the three pillars of the EC, the CFSC and the JHA.

The new constitution proposes the abolition of the EC and its replacement with the EU.

"Isn't the argument in the Steve Thorburn case based around the judge's arbitrary decision that the 1972 act taking us into the EEC can override a 1985 weights & measures act?"

Yes, Laws LJ decided (rightly in my opinion) that Parliament can do whatever it likes providing it does not prevent its successors from changing what it does. This includes requiring the repeal of its Acts to be explicit rather than implicit. As it turns out, this principle has been well held and supported in English law for several centuries.

<<
Virtually every country in the world has gone metric. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada.. Who pressured them into going metric? Was that the EU as well?
>>

No, it was the threat that the US would go metric.

Bud wrote

<<
No, it was the threat that the US would go metric.
>>

I was in South Africa at the time that they went metric. The US had nothing to do about South Africa going metric. In fact, considering the size of the US, they were not percieved to have much influence in SA. The countries with the most influence were the UK, Japan and the other West European countries. If anything, South Africa tooks her cue to go metric from the UK (as did the rest of the Commonwealth). Once the process was in motion, South Africa saw it through to completion thereby ensuring that she was in line with her major trading partners.

<<
South Africa tooks her cue to go metric from the UK
>>

So you're saying that if the UK hadn't looked like it was planning to go metric, then the commonwealth wouldn't have gone metric either?

The Commonwealth would ahve gone metric, but it would have been slower. SOuth Africa became a republic in 1961 and intriduced decimal coinage the same year. There was considerable antipathy between the Apartheid government and the UK Socialist (Wilson) government. SOuth Africa might well have gone metric as a means of breaking the Apartheid boycott (the French traded with anybody, as did the Japanese), and other countries might well have followed. My guess is that SOuth Africa would have metricated in the 1980's, not the 1970's

So if the force driving the commonwealth to go metric wasn't the UK nor the US, then why did they? The reason most of the governments gave their people was that the whole world is going metric, but how did this start? What major economic power had already gone metric that would motivate smaller countries to do so?

The metric system was introduced during the French Revolution as a "rational" system of measurement. They also decimalised time, but this did not work.
(If you are interested in this calendar, please visit http://windhorst.org/calendar/).

Napoleon forced the metric system onto the countries that he overran during the early 19th Century, but then in 1810 (or thereabouts) abandoned thye pure metric system in favour of a modofoed metric system. Many people in France were still usign the old measures like the livre (pound) and the pied (foot). Unfortunately these varied from place to place aruond France, so Napoleon decreed that the pied metrique (1/3 m) was to be used, as was the livre metrique (500g).

After the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the units ofd measure i nEurope reverted to the ols units. However, many coutnries were wished to have a uniform system of measure across their entire country. Rather than choosing the unuits of one city of province above those of other cities or provinces, they chose the metric system because:

1. It was politically neutral
2. It was logical
3. Poeple had already had some experience of using it.

The Netherlands was the first to change (1820), and later on in the century when Germany and Italy were formed from a large number of states, each started off by using the metric system as being the legal unit of measure throughout the country concerned.

One of the other characteristics of the metric system was that the French continaully tried to involve other countries in adopting a common standard. If you read Jefferson's report to COngress (I gave the URL elsehwere this morning), you can see how the US and France were cooperating in this sphere. Finally, in 1875 17 major countries met in France and they all agreed to make the metric system their legal system of measure and they also agreed to ensure that the metre and the kilogram remained the same in all the coutries concerned. (See www.bipm.fr).

Just one question, Martin, if Napoleon forced the metric system on Europe as part of his conquest, how can you say that it was politically neutral?
And what motivated the former Commonwealth, i.e., those countries that already had used the British system for a long time after industrialization, to go metric?

Bud,

Napoleon was deposed in 1814. He made a comeback the follwoing year, but was finally deposed in 1815 after the battle of Waterloo.

In 1820, when the Dutch and the Belgian (who were one country at the time), wanted to adopt a common measure across their entire country, the choice of Amsterdam's units rather than Antwerp's units or Brussel's units or Maastricht's units or Leeuwarden's units was not politically neutral. The choice of metric units was politically neutral.

I might also point out that Napoleon was a very able administrator. His administrative structure is still in use in many part of Europe including France and the Netherlands.

Also, his legal system, the Code Napoleon is still the basis of law in many European countries (and I believe, though I moght be mistaken), the basis of law in Louisiana.

All right - he was ambitious from a miltary point of view, but his is still revered in France (unlike Hitler who today is detested in Germany).

Bud asked

<<
And what motivated the former Commonwealth, i.e., those countries that already had used the British system for a long time after industrialization, to go metric?
>>

During the 1960's many British colonies achieved independence and there was a mood od questioning what they had inherited from the UK. Things that were good were kept, but things that were worthy of change were changed. One of the things that was worthy of change was the system of measure.

Martin: "Also, his legal system, the Code Napoleon is still the basis of law in many European countries (and I