2002-10-14
Personally, I don't think the EU was in the position to put up much of an
objection in 1999. The EU was preparing for one of the biggest changes in
their history, a movement to a single currency. It was more important at
that time that nothing interfere with this change. Also, at that time the
US economy was robust and the US carried a big stick. The EU really had no
choice then but to back down and delay the directive 10 more years.
But, don't expect another delay. It won't happen this time around. The EU
will be a different animal in 2010. Major changes are going to occur in
2004-2005. First you will have the inclusion of 10 more nations into the
Union, increasing the Union population by another 100 million. In 2005,
these countries will adopt the Euro, increasing the Eurozone to the borders
of Russia. Also on 2005, the EU will be in preparation of implementing a
national constitution. These are monumental changes that will increase
European power and clout in the world. From 2006 to 2009, the EU will have
4 years of time to stabilise and grow in power, so that by 2010, the TABD
will be virtually ignored by the EU.
There is also hope on the US side. With the November meeting of the NIST
concerning the FPLA, it is now possible this act will be amended to allow
metric only labelling. If the law is amended before 2010, then there will
be no need on the part of the EU to delay further the directive. It will be
very interesting to see if the TABD supports or rejects an amendment to the
law.
Once the EU directive is law, the cost burden on producers of non-metric
goods is going to sky-rocket. This is why the TABD has always opposed the
EU directive. They want to continue to produce non-metric without paying
the price for the privilege to do so.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Wentworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 2002-10-14 19:12
Subject: [USMA:22734] Re: Standards article, front page Salt Lake Tribune
> His comment's in there? Wow. I think the EU leadership should be lobbied
> to use this labeling issue as a non-threatening (in the military sense)
way
> to resist the US. They are chafing against the US in general and the Bush
> Administration in particular, and enforcing the labeling directive in 2009
> with no further delays would be a way for the EU to assert itself without
> looking like a bully ("You [the US] promised twice to work with us on
this,
> and both times you went back on your word. Why should we believe you a
> third time?") -- Jason
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [USMA:22722] Re: Standards article, front page Salt Lake
> Tribune
>
>
> > 2002-10-14
> >
> > You hit the nail on the head. Doing a search on "metric" from the TABD
> site
> > reveals the article by Mr. Treschow:
> >
> >
> >
>
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=metric&sp-a=sp01032501&sp-advanced=1&sp
>
> -p=any&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-d=custom&sp-date-range=-1&sp-start-mon
> th
> >
>
=0&sp-start-day=0&sp-start-year=&sp-end-month=0&sp-end-day=0&sp-end-year=&sp
> > -x=any&sp-c=10&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Wentworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, 2002-10-14 18:15
> > Subject: [USMA:22722] Re: Standards article, front page Salt Lake
Tribune
> >
> >
> > > Hmm...I wonder if comment is a thinly-veiled reference to the
> > > TABD's (for new USMA list members, that is the Trans-Atlantic Business
> > > Dialog group) anti-metric shenanigans?
> > >
> > > "Business would like the trans-Atlantic cooperation to move forward at
a
> > > much greater speed," said Michael Treschow, chairman of cell phone
> > > manufacturer Ericsson. "Instead of moving forward inch by inch it is
> time
> > to
> > > go metric and start measuring success in meters." -- Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Jim Elwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:51 AM
> > > Subject: [USMA:22702] Standards article, front page Salt Lake Tribune
> > >
> > >
> > > > An article about standards that appeared in the upper left corner of
> the
> > > > front page of today's Salt Lake Tribune (circ. ~ 220,000). It may
well
> > > have
> > > > appeared elsewhere, as it is a syndicated item.
> > > >
> > > > Note particularly the last paragraph.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sltrib.com/10142002/nation_w/6933.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jim Elwell, CAMS
> > > > Electrical Engineer
> > > > Industrial manufacturing manager
> > > > Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
> > > > www.qsicorp.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
