I've just been shocked by something I read on another board. In fairness I will not name the site or the poster as I wouldn't want that done to me (despite the 'banned one' doing it to many of us regurlarly).

Basically he/she said that Australian communities were at threat because the SUBWAY brand were getting around certain (dubious) laws by calling their products "footlong" and "sixinch" (without gaps in the word)!

I'm gobsmacked that people can get emotional to a degree that they can see the names of a measurement system they personally don't like destroying local communities.

Am I over-reacting or is this one step too far in the 'measurement debate'?

SteveH,

Actually I can see it being annoying that Subway is trying to get around the law by doing that. However, on the other hand if people are buying them and not having a problem with it I don't think it's a big deal really. If it was a big deal to me, to make a point I'd simply order a 15 cm or 30 cm sub in spite of the name. (just like some people will order a pound of meat even if it's listed in price per 100 g)

Yes I think it is silly to think that would destroy a community and need to suffer a boycott. The closest I'd come to a 'boycott' would be if their competition had metric subs for the same price or cheaper and they taste as good or better; and I wouldn't say that goes as far as a boycott, simply choosing by my preference.

As far as I'm concerned they've been foot long and 6 inch subs forever; I don't think it's a big deal to keep calling it that as long as their customers support the idea with their money. Just like a pint of beer, I wouldn't be horribly upset if beer came in 500 ml glasses; but the pint just seems better and if people want it let them have it.

I saw that post too. It seemed a bit "over the top."

Subway originated in the US and obviously sells 6" and 12" sandwiches here. I think they are good, and some of their choices are quite healthy for fast food; other people hate them and prefer other sandwich shops.

After seeing that post, I did a little searching. At least in Canada, Japan, South Africa and Australia, they sell 6" and 12" subs in spite of those being metric countries. I'm not sure where all they are.

I do think they would be better corporate citizens if they sold 15 and 30 cm sandwiches in those countries rather than introducing unfamiliar (or in some cases, outlawed) units. I'm not sure of the accuracy of their bun sizes, but I doubt it matters much. The 12" is the whole baguette, as baked, the 6" is half that, cut by eye (and a knife).

I wouldn't spring to their defense if the state told them they had to change, and the size doesn't seem terribly integral to their brand names. But I like their food, and don't really care enough to boycott them, Australia will just have to be torn asunder; I can't be bothered.

SteveH,

Hmm, you stirred up a firestorm over there.

Nonetheless, I only have so much outrage and will have to reserve it for engineering societies that demand student design papers in Customary units. (see "future of Imperial" thread)

John, why not take your outrage out on the industry that is using imperial rather than the the societies that train students to use imperial in order to get them ready to work in industry? I am sure that AIChE would gladly ask its students to work in metric if that were what industry wanted.

Fair question, Bud.

Professional organizations have a big impact on their industries. I was not involved in automotive until 1978 -- I worked in an electronics company before that. However, as I noted, SAE had a metric policy and standard in 1965, long before the Big Three converted to metric, which happened between 1970-75. I have to believe SAE helped and led the industry in the effort to go metric. My company was completely metric, and had been for a few years, before I joined.

Another example of an influential professional society is IEEE (and ASTM for that matter). They both had metric standards for a long time, which were merged and jointly issued in the 70's (IEEE 268/ASTM E380). The joint edition is the basis for ANSI SI10, the American industry standard for metric. Discarding metric entries is another kind of influence -- a bad kind in my opinion. "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

I could accept almost any kind of dual policy, given that Chem E is one of the least metric industries and professions. Outright forbidding of metric work shows they will never get it. They can't singlehandedly convert their industry but they should be a force for it. Maybe industrial chemicals and the factories to make them are too heavy to export and they are a purely American industry. I don't know much about it. To the degree there is any "international flavor" to chemical production, I guarantee the rest of the world doesn't use Imperial and AIChE is going to be out of touch with the rest of the industry by pretending metric doesn't exist.

As for costs, I guarantee automotive guys are cheap, penny-pinching bastards (and proud of it, thanks) who would slay their grandmothers for a $0.01 a part. Any notion that going metric cost us money is laughable. Certainly there are holdouts in American industry, but I think you may be overestimating how much of industry really uses Customary; large segments don't, but, frankly, they disguise it well in product catalogs. I would say any engineer better be able to work in metric too or will eventually face career troubles, There are many industries where you DON'T need an engineering understanding of Customary units.

That's correct, John. It all depends on the industry. The older industries are imperial - petroleum, construction, etc., and the newer ones - electronics, bioengineering, etc. - are metric.

Given the fact that the chemical engineering industry is predominantly imperial, and for a competition like this it is impossible to allow students choose which system they want to use (in order to make answers easy to compare and make calculations easy to follow for the graders), can you suggest any other alternative?

Bud wrote

<<
That's correct, John. It all depends on the industry. The older industries are imperial - petroleum, construction, etc., and the newer ones - electronics, bioengineering, etc. - are metric.
>>

Might I suggest that politics dictates whether the insdustry is metric or not. If the industry can thrive in both the US and and the export markets without changing to metric units, it will. In particular the industry will encourage the use of customary measure to preserve American jobs.

If however an American industry is subject to large imports, it will switch to metric units in order to compete on the world stage and to set up a defensive position on the home market.

<<The older industries are imperial - petroleum, construction, etc., and the newer ones - electronics, bioengineering, etc. - are metric.
>>

Thank God the makers of these new-fangled "horseless carriages" went metric.

Perhaps it is technology and/or the degree to which the business is international, not age. Pharmaceuticals are all metric. A good portion of the steel industry is either metric or knows how to fake it to sell us metric-dimensioned sheet; foreign steel sold here is metric.

Aviation/aerospace is the only industry that strikes me as both high tech and FPS. NASA is metric, but their contractors aren't, which led to the loss of that Mars orbiter. I'm surprised NASA made such little stink about the supplier violating the terms of the contract; in automotive, we use contingent liability and are insistent the t&c of the purchase order be honored.

<<
I'm surprised NASA made such little stink about the supplier violating the terms of the contract;
>>

Maybe I am being cynical, but could the fact that the supplier is a tax payer and NASA is not have influenced anybody's hand?

<<<I'm gobsmacked that people can get emotional to a degree that they can see the names of a measurement system they personally don't like destroying local communities.

Am I over-reacting or is this one step too far in the 'measurement debate'?>>>

I agree this is taking the issue to extremes, and I see nothing whatsoever wrong with Subway using the terms "foot-long" and "six-inch" since "terms" is all they are.

Just goes to show that its not just the imperial side that gets over-emotional to such a degree.

I don't know. Neither of the two firms I worked for did very much government business, but both did some (and I was involved in some of it).

My experience is that the government inspectors very carefully went over every line of the requirements to ensure the terms of the contract had been met. Also, the corporate culture was reasonable fear of them, and we had already been over every line to make sure, in our own minds, that we had complied before we had them in to take receipt of the goods. We wanted every i dotted, every t crossed.

Perhaps if you pay (contribute to?) enough Congressmen, you get a better deal. (I'll see your cynicism and raise you a pile. It is not about the TAX payments.)

<<Just goes to show that its not just the imperial side that gets over-emotional to such a degree.>>

To be honest I've never hear of a pro-imp saying that metric signage tears communities apart.

<<To be honest I've never hear of a pro-imp saying that metric signage tears communities apart.>>

Perhaps they are not using words, but isn't that what ARM and Tony's signwrechers are saying?

No - I see ARM as saying "not 'ere mate!"

But I cannot comment on an organisation that I'm not a member of - I merely pontificate :-D

Back to the original subject, I have to retract what I said about the sizes not being integral to the brand:
<<I wouldn't spring to their defense if the state told them they had to change, and the size doesn't seem terribly integral to their brand names. >>

In the past, they just listed two sizes, 6" and 12", and two prices on their menu. Lately, they have begun using "footlong" in US advertising and seem to be making it part of their brand image. I guess they do so around the world.

So now I have very mixed feelings on whether metric countries have a basis for objection. It seems very minor to me, and the "part of brand image" strengthens their argument somewhat.

We seem to lack Australians here, but Subway apparently uses "footlong" in the UK too. I'm sure the BWMA supports that. What do others think? Is this a secret American plot to subvert the UK's plans for metric or a big "who cares?"

<<<Perhaps they are not using words, but isn't that what ARM and Tony's signwrechers are saying?

No - I see ARM as saying "not 'ere mate!">>>

and how is that different from what John said above??!!

Its all very well supporting "choice", but that has to work both ways.

I'm talking about the 'communities ripped apart' angle. That's what this thread is about.

All I've heard on the emotional front is "imperial users are child abusers", "imperial is damaging australian communities", "imperial is like the asian footbinding cruelty", "imperial is the fault of children's decreasing education standard" etc.

If you wish to point me to just ONE post where a pro-imp or a pro-choice has likened metric to some form of collapse or terrible calamity/cruelty then I'll say "fair enough" - but you may well have a task and a half on your hands finding one.

<<If you wish to point me to just ONE post where a pro-imp or a pro-choice has likened metric to some form of collapse or terrible calamity/cruelty then I'll say "fair enough" - but you may well have a task and a half on your hands finding one.>>

I'm not sure if you will agree, and it is an article, not a post. If it doesn't qualify, it is at least close.

I nominate the convoluted BWMA analysis of the NIST permissive-metric only trying to imply it is compulsory metric-only and all the evils that will befall us if we do it.
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Metric%20proposal.htm

<<<All I've heard on the emotional front is "imperial users are child abusers", "imperial is damaging australian communities", "imperial is like the asian footbinding cruelty", "imperial is the fault of children's decreasing education standard" etc.>>>

And who said those things? I don't think its fair to take into account the rants of one anonymous nutcase on an internet messageboard.

On the emotional front, the pro-imperial side is far more extreme. Have you EVER heard of anyone on the pro-metric side changing signs from imperial to metric?

<<I nominate the convoluted BWMA analysis of the NIST permissive-metric only trying to imply it is compulsory metric-only and all the evils that will befall us if we do it.
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Metric%20proposal.htm>>

It's passionate, but its hardly suggesting communties will be destroyed.



Andy:
<<And who said those things? I don't think its fair to take into account the rants of one anonymous nutcase on an internet messageboard.>>

Not quite, one was the nutcase, another was a woman, another an old-timer who used to post here and 'gave up' and another a so-called moderate from a more moderate source.

<<On the emotional front, the pro-imperial side is far more extreme. Have you EVER heard of anyone on the pro-metric side changing signs from imperial to metric?>>

That's direct physical action - not emotion on a level of communities being 'destroyed'. Its similar to when the English tried to force us Welsh to use English only signs on Welsh roads.

And it worked!

<<
On the emotional front, the pro-imperial side is far more extreme. Have you EVER heard of anyone on the pro-metric side changing signs from imperial to metric?
>>

That's because there are no countries in the world where imperial signs are illegal but get erected anyway.

<<That's because there are no countries in the world where imperial signs are illegal but get erected anyway.
>>

There is probably no other country with an avowed policy of going metric that makes metric illegal (for some things). (*)

Are you only counting signs erected by governmental authority? In Canada, some gas stations were prosecuted for advertising (and selling??) in gallons, where litres are required.

(*) By this measure, the US has a slight technical fault. FPLA requires dual labelling of all packaged goods, so neither Imperial or SI alone is sufficient. However, on items sold from bulk, it MUST be labelled in FPS, which suffices, but it is allowed to be dual. Odd that BWMA doesn't argue that "sold from bulk" needs dual to prevent Americans from becoming confused, but they need to retain dual on pre-packaged foods. Proposed NIST amendment would allow Imperial or SI or both on items sold from bulk.

<<That's because there are no countries in the world where imperial signs are illegal but get erected anyway.>>


Hmm, one wonders whetther this is going back to our 'unlawful' versus 'illegal' thing.

Barbados's roads are metric - however there are loads of imperial signs all over the place put up by these things called "people".

<<
Odd that BWMA doesn't argue that "sold from bulk" needs dual to prevent Americans from becoming confused, but they need to retain dual on pre-packaged foods. Proposed NIST amendment would allow Imperial or SI or both on items sold from bulk.
>>

Don't be silly John. BWMA is arguing that imperial needs to be retained on pre-packaged foods because it is what the vast majority of Americans look at and understand. No one would be confused if metric were dropped.

re (Andy): "On the emotional front, the pro-imperial side is far more extreme. Have you EVER heard of anyone on the pro-metric side changing signs from imperial to metric?"


REPLY: Er, no, especially since nearly all metric road signs are illegal*.

But, tell you what, I have heard of folk making it a crime to use a certain measurement system. I've heard of folk raiding market stalls, with coppers in attendance, to grab and smash scales using certain measurements. I've heard of the national curriculum being changed to stop children learning certain measurements at school. I've heard of the European Union requiring all official documents - even in the U.K. - to be only in metric. I've heard of folk passing a law in 2002 banning the display of the words 'pound' and 'ounce' in shops after 31 December 2009.

Now who might these folk be? Extremists?




* P.S. Correction. There are documented examples of authorities attempting to reverse actions by ARM supporters in Vauxhall, Lea Valley Park, Bedfordshire, Stratford-on-Avon and elsewhere - by foolishly wasting taxpayers' money changing signs back to metric from Imperial. They all gave up after a second visit by ARM supporters to make them legal once again

<<BWMA is arguing that imperial needs to be retained on pre-packaged foods because it is what the vast majority of Americans look at and understand. No one would be confused if metric were dropped. >>

So most Americans would be better off if the 2 L soda bottle were just marked 2 QT 3.6 FL OZ? I wouldn't feel better off. My observation is most Americans are quite used to it and wouldn't care if the Imperial "fell off."

On other products that are not in rational metric sizes, certainly some people would be bothered. There are more examples in "personal care" products than food, but I haven't noticed any resistance to rational metric sizes.

I think BWMA is really arguing Imperial should be mandatory and SI forbidden, but are realistic enough to settle for obstructing metrication and settling for what minor victories they can achieve. If one makes that assumption, there are no inconsistencies in their argument. If you go with "choice" there seem to be some.

<<<REPLY: Er, no, especially since nearly all metric road signs are illegal*.

But, tell you what, I have heard of folk making it a crime to use a certain measurement system. I've heard of folk raiding market stalls, with coppers in attendance, to grab and smash scales using certain measurements. I've heard of the national curriculum being changed to stop children learning certain measurements at school. I've heard of the European Union requiring all official documents - even in the U.K. - to be only in metric. I've heard of folk passing a law in 2002 banning the display of the words 'pound' and 'ounce' in shops after 31 December 2009.

Now who might these folk be? Extremists?>>>



LOL! Can anyone spot a slight hint of inconsistency (almost used another word there, but restrained myself..) in the above!?

The first part of your posting suggests that you fully approve of the state making certain measurements illegal - even volunteering your own services to ensure compliance with the law. Yet the second part of your posting seems to suggest that you don't like the state telling people what measurements they can and can't use.

Please clarify, Tony!

Andy,

Everything used to be imperial.
Changing it to metric was the issue,not changing it back!

<<
So most Americans would be better off if the 2 L soda bottle were just marked 2 QT 3.6 FL OZ? I wouldn't feel better off. My observation is most Americans are quite used to it and wouldn't care if the Imperial "fell off."
>>
You are right, in the case of soda bottles. Soda bottles, water bottles and alcoholic beverages are the only groceries I can think of that are generally in rounded metric. There may be a few others. But the vast majority of products are in rounded English units. Are you saying that Americans wouldn't mind if "1 gallon" were removed from milk jugs and they only said "3.78 L"?


<<
I think BWMA is really arguing Imperial should be mandatory and SI forbidden, but are realistic enough to settle for obstructing metrication and settling for what minor victories they can achieve. If one makes that assumption, there are no inconsistencies in their argument. If you go with "choice" there seem to be some.
>>
They are arguing that if the law is going to require any units, it should require the ones that the people are most familiar with, and no units should ever be prohibited.
(This is what I believe their position is, but I do not represent them so I can't say for sure.)

<<<and no units should ever be prohibited.
(This is what I believe their position is, but I do not represent them so I can't say for sure.)>>>

The BWMA are clearly for the prohibition of metric on road signs.

<<You are right, in the case of soda bottles. Soda bottles, water bottles and alcoholic beverages are the only groceries I can think of that are generally in rounded metric. There may be a few others. But the vast majority of products are in rounded English units. Are you saying that Americans wouldn't mind if "1 gallon" were removed from milk jugs and they only said "3.78 L"?>>

Some areas where imported brands and "fake imports" (American brands trying to look as prestigious as imports) are in rounded metric:
*Olive oil and specialty flavored oils
*Vinegar, especially wine and balsamic vinegar
*tea
But not a lot of food, although my store carried a brand of sugar marked 2 kg/4.4 lb for a while. I think it came from Canada. And I note some bags of sugar from US producers are now down to 4 lbs.

I see more of a trend in "personal care" products, toothpaste, dental floss, mouthwash, hand lotion, etc.

If FPLA goes to permissive-metric-only, I think companies that actually export in the same container will be the first to use it. I don't see milk as being a leader. I suspect the company would first adopt a rational metric size, with supplemental imperial, make metric more prominent, then drop the imperial after a while. Companies that already have rational metric sizes would be first to drop the imperial. Customer reaction would be a big factor in the rate. Unlike Europe, dropping the Imperial would be voluntary, so companies that thought it gave them a sales advantage could keep it. I would expect companies to be cautious and move slowly when adopted.

<<
But not a lot of food, although my store carried a brand of sugar marked 2 kg/4.4 lb for a while. I think it came from Canada. And I note some bags of sugar from US producers are now down to 4 lbs.
>>

Many foods, for example sugar, may only be sold in certain sized packets within the UK. The UK has much stricter rules (that apply only to UK manufacturers) in this respect than other EU countries, but under the EU rules, we must allow products from elsewhere within the EU into our stores (unless there is a good reason to the contrary - eg health, pornography etc).

There is currently a debate within the EU whether or not the EU should adopt the UK approach on the matters of standard sizes (or at least go part of the way).

<<There is currently a debate within the EU whether or not the EU should adopt the UK approach on the matters of standard sizes (or at least go part of the way). >>

The US, in typical fashion, tries to swing both ways on this. The US has specifically said it will not regulate standard sizes. However, the Commerce department has said industry associations agreeing on "voluntary" standard sizes would not be an antitrust violation, and, in fact, the Commerce Secretary reserves the right to appeal to them to do so if consumers complain about proliferation of package sizes. (???) I guess the official policy is "hope that informal coercion solves the problem."

As funny as it sounds, it seems to work. Unit pricing laws in most states have eliminated the advantage of really odd sizes, and industries seem to have converged on a few sizes. A company has to be fairly sure it has a "better idea" to depart from the herd mentality.

<<Unlike Europe, dropping the Imperial would be voluntary, so companies that thought it gave them a sales advantage could keep it. I would expect companies to be cautious and move slowly when adopted.>>

I hate to say this - but I've seen more imperial/metric labelling in europe than in the UK .
Only the other day a mate of mine came back from holland brandishing a box of chocolates in imperial (rounded) and then metric blah dot blah blah. They were those posh beligian sort.
Thats the problem see- we obey all the rules like its a capital offence while the rest of 'em apply 'em piecemeal style.

<<, we must allow products from elsewhere within the EU into our stores (unless there is a good reason to the contrary - eg health, pornography etc).>>


GREAT, so we have to have their stiupid measuremnt system that hardly anyone wants and most dont use but we can't have their pornography and dodgy mushrooms. ITs like one rule for them and (etc etc etc)

<<I hate to say this - but I've seen more imperial/metric labelling in europe than in the UK .>>

I was speaking of the directive that takes effect (current schedule, but previously deferred multiple times) in 2010.

My understanding is the Continent allows dual labelling until 2010.

SteveH wrote

<<
I hate to say this - but I've seen more imperial/metric labelling in europe than in the UK .
>>


Er Steve, the UK is part of Europe, so is Ireland, Iceland and Armenia. Maybe you meant "the Continent".

Why do we have a "Europe minister"

Why does the BBC have a "Europe Correspondant"

Ask the person next to you if they've ever been to Europe - check their response.

<<
The BWMA are clearly for the prohibition of metric on road signs.
>>

Road signs are erected by the government, not by private individuals or companies.

I don't believe BWMA are for the prohibition of metric road signs on private roads.

<<<Ask the person next to you if they've ever been to Europe - check their response.>>>

Can't believe I've just done this, but I actually just asked 2 people. How sad am I?

Anyway, I got the exact responses I expected, and it goes like this:

Person 1.

- Have you ever been to Europe?

- (chuckle) Eh?

- (repeat) Have you ever been to Europe?

- Is this a trick question? I'm in Europe now aint I? You mean ever been to another country in Europe?

Person 2.

- Have you ever been to Europe?

- sorry?

- you ever been to Europe?

- (laughs) what do you mean?

I gave up then and explained myself, feeling rather silly.

So my conclusions to the experiment are that people generally react with confusion when you ask them if they have ever been to a place where they already are. Funny that.

Just to test the theory more extensively I'm going to try again when I do my shopping in Sainsbury's tonight armed with the question "Have you ever been to Sainsbury's?"

Ask someone if they're going "into town for lunch" whilst living in the town.

To a Brit the term "I'm going to spend my holiday travelling around Europe" will unlikely include Britain.

It's not an anti-europe thing (I'm not anti-europe). It's just the way we (as an Island group of nations) refer to it.

Listen to people!
Apart from the other examples/questions which I note you didn't touch/answer a lot of references to europe actually mean continental europe by default.

If you had changed your question to "have you ever been across to europe" it might have worked better.

That's why the phrase "I want out of Europe" means nothing - we can't leave a continent but we can understand that the colloquial meaning of europe refers to the land mass to our east.

Another mistake is to mix the EU with Europe.

Andy - Whenever someone says to you "I'm going to America for my holidays" do you s****** and say "Where? Argentina?"

Steve, your orignial quote was "I see more imperial labelling in Europe than in the UK" and in that context your sentance doesn't make sense unless you are "anti-europe" and somehow see the UK as not part of it.

In other contexts as you say in your reply above of course it makes sense.

Andy - how many times have you heard a news broadcast (or similar) say "The extreme weather has battered Europe andthe UK and is travelling west twards greenland" or "The UK and Europe don't share the same economy cycle".

I'm hardly anti-European. Unless I'm a massoccist that is (the fact that I like travellig around europe ;-)

Cool! My post was censored automatically! That bit that says s****** is actually another work for chuckle that rhymes with 'bigger' and starts with 's'.

How sensitive is that?

<<<Andy - how many times have you heard a news broadcast (or similar) say "The extreme weather has battered Europe andthe UK and is travelling west twards greenland" or "The UK and Europe don't share the same economy cycle".>>>

Unless it was in an anti-europe tabloid, it would be "battered continental europe and the UK" and "The UK and the rest of Europe don't share the same economy cycle"

<<<I'm hardly anti-European. Unless I'm a massoccist that is (the fact that I like travellig around europe ;-)>>>

In the British context of the word, I take "anti-european" to mean someone who is against Britains association with the rest of Europe, not necesarily someone who dislikes continental europe.

G'day guys

Just to confirm to you all that actually fair dinkum, those mongrels at Subway are ripping our communities apart by selling foot-long subs. S'truth, the only flaming galahs on this planet that still use such a ridiculous unit of measurement are you pommies and the yanks. Us aussies couldn't give a XXXX for your ancient pommie measures - and you can have your bloody Queen back as well!

Bruce
Yabba Yabba
NSW, Australia

re (Bruce): "G'day guys...Just to confirm to you all that actually fair dinkum, those mongrels at Subway are ripping our communities apart by selling foot-long subs. S'truth, the only flaming galahs on this planet that still use such a ridiculous unit of measurement are you pommies and the yanks. Us aussies couldn't give a XXXX for your ancient pommie measures - and you can have your bloody Queen back as well!" - Bruce, Yabba Yabba, NSW, Australia


REPLY: 'Strewth, mate, an Oz who - one must presume - has never asked for a 'shetland' (four fluid ounces of beer) in Western Australia, or a 'pony' (five fluid ounces) in Victoria, South Australia or Western Australia, a 'bobby' (six fluid ounces) in Western Australia, a 'butcher' or 'seven' in, say, South Australia or Northern Territory, an 'eight' (eight fluid ounces) in Tasmania, a 'middy' (ten fluid ounces) in New South Wales or Queensland, or a pint in New South Wales or North Queensland (20 fluid ounces, just to remind you), or a jug (40 fluid ounces [two pints]) - anywhere in Australia.

Or an Oz who knows XXXX all about drinking beer in Australia, anyway!

Good on yer, mate, take a gander at page 59 of the Customary Measures Society's report, published January 2000: "Weights and Measures: Britian's Way Ahead".

And our Ozzie is clearly one of the minority of 46% who were outvoted by the 54% who said in Oz's 2000 referendum: 'Keep our Queen' - and who, quite rightly, didn't trust all the lefty republicans who wanted to get rid of her

<<Unless it was in an anti-europe tabloid, it would be "battered continental europe and the UK" and "The UK and the rest of Europe don't share the same economy cycle" >>


I hate to say this, Andy - this is how the BBC (oh, and 'people' talk). Even Radio1 has a "europe correspondant"


<<In the British context of the word, I take "anti-european" to mean someone who is against Britains association with the rest of Europe, not necesarily someone who dislikes continental europe.>>

That's an interesting point. I like the differences ('vive la difference') but I'm pretty sure I'm not anti-european.

EU-phobe or anti-EU, yes. But anti-Europe? I can't even think that way and the reason I hate the EU so much is directly because I love Europe so much.

<<<Even Radio1 has a "europe correspondant">>>

You've missed my point. Having a "europe correspondant" doesn't imply that Britain is not included in "Europe"

<<<EU-phobe or anti-EU, yes. But anti-Europe? I can't even think that way and the reason I hate the EU so much is directly because I love Europe so much.>>>

I understand your situation, but I would still describe you as anti-european because you don't even consider yourself a european. Thats what the word means to me, not someone who dislikes the rest of Europe.

your distinction between europe and EU is less clear cut than mine.

re (Andy): "I understand your situation, but I would still describe you as anti-european because you don't even consider yourself a european"

REPLY: About as sensible as a Welshman saying to a Scot living in Wales: "I would describe you as anti-Welsh becaase you don't even consider yourself Welsh"

Tony, did you study Geography at school?

On which continent is the UK?

re (Andy): "Tony, did you study Geography at school?"

REPLY: Yes, and I also have a First Class Honours Degree in Geography from Sheffield University.

Perhaps more relevantly, I also studied Geopolitics and British and European History

The following is the dictionary definition of a European.

1. A native or inhabitant of Europe.
2. A person of European descent.

Are you insisting that this does not apply to you?

My views on Europe are precisely aligned with these famous (geopolitical) words of Sir Winston Churchill on Europe:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have our own dream and our own task.
We are with Europe, but not of it.
We are linked but not combined.
We are interested and associated, but not absorbed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, Sir Winston is not around, Andy, for you to quote the dictionary at him and give him lectures on Geography.

Let it be remembered that it is Europe* that has been the cause of three major imperialist wars in the last 200 years - and then rescued Europe* and kept it free from imperialism and oppression


* Oh, sorry, I meant *continental* Europe

Andy, here's another geopolitical quote you might like to note:

At the close of the session of 1805, William Pitt the Younger's health was poor. The news of the Battle of Trafalgar that had taken place on 21 October affected his sleep. On 9 November he attended the Lord Mayor's banquet. When he was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe,' he said that Europe was not to be saved by any one man, and that:

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example'

Andy,

Off the eastern seaboard of Asia is a large, populous island called Japan.

Most people from Japan describe themselves as 'Japanese', not 'Asians'.

How is that different, if at all, from Brits thinking of themselves as 'British' rather than 'Europeans'?

<<< Let it be remembered that it is Europe* that has been the cause of three major imperialist wars in the last 200 years >>>

I think you'll find that the wars were caused by certain european countries, not "all the countries in Europe except Britain"

You have some quite shockingly outdated views. How can you lump 'the rest of Europe' together saying they are the ones that started wars?!

<<<Most people from Japan describe themselves as 'Japanese', not 'Asians'.
How is that different, if at all, from Brits thinking of themselves as 'British' rather than 'Europeans'? >>>

Of course the Japanese describe themselves as Japanese, but you won't find a Japanese who denies being Asian!

Its not about thinking of ourselves as European RATHER THAN British. Its about you denying the fact that in the wider sense you are European as well as British.

Considering we are an island nation could we not describe ourselves as American in the same light as European?* Or is that based upon some sort of distance thing where we are closer to europe but less like them and farther from america but more like them?

I'm sure that "europe" is how you feel rather than some sort of man made boundary that seems to go under water and stretch around us.

(* I'd prefer to be neither)

--------------------------------------------------


From Tony:

My views on Europe are precisely aligned with these famous (geopolitical) words of Sir Winston Churchill on Europe:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have our own dream and our own task.
We are with Europe, but not of it.
We are linked but not combined.
We are interested and associated, but not absorbed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Strangely it was Hitler who said (of Europe) :


"all he wanted was a federal Europe".


Funny how things have worked out, innit?

<<<Considering we are an island nation could we not describe ourselves as American in the same light as European?* Or is that based upon some sort of distance thing where we are closer to europe but less like them and farther from america but more like them?>>>

The distance certainly comes into it, given that America is half way round the world whereas the rest of Europe is across a narrow stretch of water.

There are many island nations in the world. None of them claim to be not part of the continent that they are geographically part of.

I can't actually believe I'm actually arguing this point!

Not wanting anything to do with the rest of Europe is fair enough, but believing that we are not part of Europe (on a geographical basis) is right up there with believing the earth is flat.

<<<I'm sure that "europe" is how you feel rather than some sort of man made boundary that seems to go under water and stretch around us.>>>

I think you'll find the boundaries of continents are not entirely man-made, since we are physically connected to the European land mass (although a narrow stretch of it is now underwater)

If, as you say, you love "Europe", why won't you accept that we are part of the same continent? With bizarre views like that you shouldn't be surprised if you are associated with people with much more extreme opinions.

Does anyone know of any law (national or international) or other authority that defines the land that is part of each continent? I checked some atlases, and there s