I mereley observed the self contradictory stance you take over our
democracy. You defend the autonomous powers of the upper house over an
elected government, but insist that metrication should only be at the
consent of ordinary people.
I merely pointed out that the upper house acts as a check-and-balance to the
lower house.
They don't really have that much power to enforce a decision, or change a
decision.
But like I say, the "Lords debate" is something I have a passing interest in
-it really isn't up there with the hot potatos for me.
BTW - I also consider the weekly meeting of the Queen with the PM important
too. I suspect that on many occasions the Queen has influenced numourous
PMs in her time.
For what it's worth, my own position on the subject of popular support for
metrication is that *if* popular opinion is against completing metrication
in the UK, that doesn't mean it is wrong to do it.
My position:-
If safety is compromised then there must be one standard if having more than
one standard could be dangerous, like medicine and road signs. However I
cannot support denying someone the right to say "pound" when they ask for
apples or potatos.
People's minds can be changed if they are properly informed about the
issues and the reasons for change properly explained and justified.
I don't like the idea of "changing people's minds" from an autoritative
state point of view. I'd rather they change their own minds based on their
experiences, maximum exposure to choice, and a variety of sources from which
to mould and shape opinion.
- [USMA:32883] Re: Metric in federal legislation Stephen Humphreys
-
