Comments on: UKMA slates EU climb down on metrication

by: Phil Hall

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:32:38 +0000

I comment on this remark from Tabitha Jones:

“Will there be a UKMA patrol officer making sure everyone uses metric?”

The UK metric association are endevouring to achieve its aims by reasoned argument. We present this on our web site and encourage others to use British democracy and that most sacred freedom to speak out to the media, politicians and others in society who have the power to bring about change.

We will stand or fall entirely by the merits of our case.

The same cannot be said of opponents of metrication who manifestly are prepared to manipulate public opinion by misleading publicity campaigns (qv recent press stories causing confusion about the true legal position over allowed units for trade all of which were perpetrated by the so called “metric martyrs” campaign).

by: Daniel Jackson

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:18:21 +0000

Found this on another website:

EC backpeddles on threat to mile and pint
20 September 2005)

In an interview with EUpolitix.com on 19 September,
European Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry
Günter Verheugen denied that he intends to force the
UK to implement metric measures. He said: “I am not
pressuring the UK to go metric. As long as I am in
Brussels I will not touch the issue. Full stop … I
personally have a lot of sympathy for the pint and for
the mile in the UK … what is the problem here for
the internal market. Really, what is the problem?”

It appears to me that the recent hoopla about the 2010 deadline being extended indefinitely is the work of one person…Günter Verheugen. He may have made up his mind long before the surveys of earlier this year and just used some of the anti-metric only comments to justify his decision. As you see, in 2005 he was a force for the preservation of British units.

We can only hope he won’t be in Brussels long and the next person will not push for a change to the directive. Also there is hopefully a good chance the Commission will vote Verheugen’s proposal down and the deadline will remain.

by: Dave Brown

Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:42:19 +0000

When I say, ‘Once we get rid of imperial conversions’ what I mean is that sooner or later retailers will tire of labelling all their loose produce with two prices. They will realise - as some supermarkets already have - that you only need one price to define how much something costs and you only need one weight to define how much you are selling. Once that becomes the norm, everyone will have to think in metric for all their shopping. Once they get used to it (after perhaps 24 hours), they’ll wonder what they made such a fuss was about.

by: Joe Oakley

Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:02:35 +0000

Having just stumbled across this blog and read this article only, I obviously am basing my opinions on what is written here. In this instance I find myself agreeing with Tabitha Jones. She is right when she says that not all Britons want to be metricated fully.
Plenty of British people will tell you that.

by: Tabitha Jones

Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:41:37 +0000

Ok Dave, I’ll correct myself.

Not all Britons want to be ‘fully metricated’.

By the way, when you say, ‘Once we get rid of imperial conversions’…, what do you mean. Will it become illegal to state your height in feet and inches? Will there be a UKMA patrol officer making sure everyone uses metric?

Finally, I’ll never understand the necessity to be fully metricated. Please feel free to try and persuade me to change my mind. It won’t happen though.

[Editorial note: This last paragraph well illustrates the mindset of many opponents of metrication. Their opposition has nothing to do with facts or logic but is simply an emotional reaction to a set of complete misconceptions, coupled with a stubborn unwillingness to change the habits of a lifetime. Penetrating and overcoming this mindset is the challenge]

by: Dave Brown

Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:54:59 +0000

Tabitha,
we already are metricated! All they’ve done is to prolong the pain of using both systems. Once we get rid of the imperial conversions you’ll have to use metric; and then perhaps you’ll understand.

by: Tabitha Jones

Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:53:05 +0000

For once the EU has done something commendable. They have realised that not all Britons wants to be ‘metricated’ and I congratulate this decision.

by: Crooked Miles

Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:28:18 +0000

Like it or not, in the face of apparent unanimity among member states to prolong the permission of supplementary indications, a climb-down was virtually inevitable. But the quid pro quo should be to endorse and emphasise that they are supplementary and no more. Also, the Commission’s proposals do not make it clear whether this is no more than a permission, or whether it grants licence to mandate the use of supplementary indications in some areas. Two examples are the current EU directive which requires kilo-calories to be shown alongside kJ on nutrition labelling and the UK regulations requiring mpg plus l/100km to be shown in car specifications.

by: Daniel Jackson

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:40:08 +0000

Another problem area is the UK situation with derogations. To the best of my knowledge the EU has allowed the UK to continue using non-SI units for road signs, pints for milk in returnable bottles, pints in pubs and acres for land registration.

However, despite these derogations, there is a big difference between not forcing these areas to change to metric and allowing metric to be used in these areas if wanted. The EU directive doesn’t have to force the UK to set a date but it should force all member states to allow metric in all instances. Thus even if there is no national plan to change road signs, it shouldn’t be illegal for those who want them to have them. It shouldn’t be illegal for those who want to use litres in pubs to do so.

by: Daniel Jackson

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:26:50 +0000

I understand that there may be costs associated with changing manuals and labels, but there is a way to do it cheaply. The EU could allow an extended but not indefinite time period for presently existing documents to continue to carry dual units. But they can also require that anything new or updated have the non-SI units removed.

If a new product comes out on the market and a manual or label hasn’t been written, the EU can require that the new documentation be metric only. If an older manual is modified or updated for any reason, then non-SI units can be removed. In these two instances, there is no cost due to metrication.

As far as I know, the US FPLA only affects product labels on prepackaged goods, mostly found in supermarkets. I don’t believe at present there is any law requiring the use of non-SI units as a supplementary unit in any other form of documentation, such as manuals. Thus the EU directive can have the effect of forcing dual units and non-SI units out of existence where it presently is not required.

Has anyone really researched this? If we discover that US law only affects a small part of goods and services produced, then the EU directive need only be modified to deal with those areas where it does come in conflict with EU law but only when the US side ends restrictions on metric only.