"Can the subjects (England's relationship with the EU and metrication) really
ever be said to overlap?"
Firstly - please try not to make the usual American mistake of calling the UK
"England". We're a country of four nations - thus - if one talks about
"England's" relationship with the EU then I become excluded because I am Welsh.
I suspect you did mean the UK though (or even "Britain" if you don't want to
include N.I.) so you're automatically forgiven ;-) ;-) ;-)
A lot of people would not say 'overlap' but would go as far as to say that it's
"all the EU's fault". I don't share that view.
My own view is that decisions have been made in the EU that were rubberstamped
by a government that's sold us out (to the EU, not metrication).
I've yet to see a party manifesto that states "we will metricate the UK".
I would much prefer the debate to happen fully in the UK parliament and be
hammered out by MPs and have nothing to do with it being sourced in the EU.
But I'm against EU membership so that would be obvious for me to think that way!
There *is* EU involvement (through treaties and the like) but the EU did not
exactly "create" an UK law regarding metrication. That's why I say "overlap".
" On the one hand, I don't see why someone opposed to EU membership would feel
pressed to oppose metric because of that"
Furthermore - there are people who love the EU who also love imperial.
Likewise there are some who want out of the EU but also want to see metrication
in the UK (the minority who see themselves as "measurement warriors", ie the
extremists, never quite understand that!). However, metric has become mixed
up with the EU in many people's perceptions.
It's my opinion that the subject of metrication has been (almost) irreversibly
harmed by it's association with the EU.
It's a fatal combination because I suspect that prior to the Common Market
becoming the EU (EEC, EC, etc) popularity of the metric system in the UK might
not have been that low (I think I remember seeing that it had near on 50%
support). Then the transformation of the Common Market got underway (treaty
after treaty, more power, etc). It became associated with metric in several
ways, but mainly by politicians and the media. The EU has steadily become less
and less popular in the UK. That reaction, with it's association with metric
laws etc, has had a combined effect. Many opinion polls have put the
popularity of metric at a very low level - anywhere between 75% and a 97%
preference for imperial. Of course these polls can be read in different ways.
My belief is that it has been a knock on effect from "what people don't like
about being in the EU" (even from those who, on the whole, would prefer to stay
in the 'club').
I'll be bolder. If we exited the EU some decades ago - I suspect we'd either
be metric or close to it.
"And the EU has already decided they're willing to let England stay non-metric
forever, right?"
Many (anti-EU, eurosceptic, "and on the fencers") would see that sentence as
the reason why the EU is "the big villian". A political grouping based
overseas "allowing" us to do things. It's a bit like roads etc that have the
sign saying "funded by the EU". We're a net contributor! ie. we
(simplistically) give someone a million quid to build a road costing half a
million quid and then put a sign up praising the the person who built it!
Anyhow - you touch upon a good point. If you re-word it slightly you have the
best thing that's happened to metric in decades (in the UK) - ie, a
disassociation of metric from the EU. Time will tell how that permeates out.
But it would be easier to promote metric now, because it can be sold as
something more independant, something more British.
> And> the EU isn't the only otherwise metric international organization that
> England is a part of, so if> you claim that just being a member of the EU
> would "peer-pressure" you to be metric, you'd have to> say the same about all
> those other organizations (The Commonwealth of Nations, etc.).>
The British Commonwealth (for example) does not have lawmaking or
law-influencing powers, it wasn't designed to do that. It can act in a
persuasion manner (eg to prevent a military dictatorship, etc) but it can't
impose laws via treaties etc.
Having said that I've been to many parts of the British Commonwealth that is
far from metric - it's just that most people think of Canada, Australia and NZ
when they talk "commonwealth". (This is not a British trait, I - for example -
see the commonwealth in action whenever I see an international cricket match!!).
"Am I missing something?"
I've devoted a bit of time to answering many points - I hope they're
interesting even if some might not agree with them.
It's my opinion that we should be out of the EU and therefore anything I say
will be biased that way - thus - the above is mainly opinion or how I see
things. Others will have different views and, to be honest, various views as
this is not totally polar.> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:19:15 -0800> From: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:40492] Re: EU Council> To: [email protected]> > Can
the subjects (England's relationship with the EU and metrication) really ever
be said to> overlap? I don't know too much about it but I thought those issues
were pretty much orthogonal...> err... guess I should say "disjoint" so as not
to mix metaphors.> > On the one hand, I don't see why someone opposed to EU
membership would feel pressed to oppose> metric because of that. Peru,
Uzbekistan, South Korea, New Zealand, West Xylophone, and Zimbabwe> don't seem
likely to join the EU and yet they've gone metric. Presumably they had other
reasons> for doing so.> > On the other hand, I don't see why someone who
supports EU membership would feel pressed to> support metric because of that.
England is already an exception to numerous EU rules, is it not? > And the EU
has already decided they're willing to let England stay non-metric forever,
right? And> the EU isn't the only otherwise metric international organization
that England is a part of, so if> you claim that just being a member of the EU
would "peer-pressure" you to be metric, you'd have to> say the same about all
those other organizations (The Commonwealth of Nations, etc.).> > Am I missing
something?> > --- Stephen Humphreys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > > Ezra,>
> > > FYI: The only mainstream party that is more pro-metric than the current
Labour lot are the> > LibDems - and thay have no chance in winning a general
election.> > > > The Tories, who are the most likely to turn over Brown's
government's majority, are even less> > keen (generally) on metrication. They
are also more eurosceptic (for where the subjects> > sometimes overlap).> > > >
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> Subject: [USMA:40484] Re:
EU> > Council> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:17:57 -0800> > Gene,> > Thanks for the
additional info. I'm> > glad to hear that the Units of > Measurement Directive
(what we have been calling the "metric> > directive") is > not yet before the
EU Council.> > Even if the Units of Measurement Directive is> > amended as
proposed, the UK > could go much further than it has in enforcing the primacy
of> > metric units > and widening the scope of that enforcement to advertising
and product >> > descriptions. (But that will have to wait for another day and
another > government, I'm afraid.> > :-(> > Ezra> > ----- Original Message
----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: "U.S. Metric> > Association"
<[email protected]>> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 11:55 AM> Subject:> >
[USMA:40483] EU Council> > > > Ezra,> >> > Below are some brief excerpts from:>
>> >> > <www.counsilium.europa.eu/showPage.asp?id=242&lang=en&mode=g>> >> > The
Council is the main> > decision-making body of the EU.> >> > The ministers of
the Member States meet within the> > Council...> >> > Depending on the issue on
the agenda, each country will be represented by > >> > the minister responsible
for that subject...> >> > The Council...passes laws, usually> > legislating
jointly with the European > > Parliament... END of Excerpts.> >> > No
currently> > posted agenda includes the EU Metric Directive.> >> > Gene.> >
---- Original message ---->> > >>Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:01:11 +0000> >>From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject:> > [USMA:40473] Re: EU Metric Directive> >>To:
"U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>> >>>> > >>My next question is
pretty obvious: why does Elizabeth say that approval > >>by the Council> > (and
which council, exactly?) is "uncertain'? What does > >>that mean? When do they
meet? What> > are the forces in play? etc. etc.> >>> >>Anyone out there with
suitable history and contacts> > able to drill down a > >>little further? I'd
love to know!> >>> >>Ezra> > > > >
_________________________________________________________________> > Share what
Santa brought you> > https://www.mycooluncool.com> > > >
____________________________________________________________________________________>
Be a better friend, newshound, and > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >
_________________________________________________________________
Share what Santa brought you
https://www.mycooluncool.com
