WRITTEN QUESTION E-3386/05

by Ashley Mote M.E.P., England, to the European Commission

Subject: Scrapping imperial measurements

"UK told to scrap imperial measurements"

Can the Commission please confirm recent reports (amongst others, Sunday Times, 28 August 2005) that Britain has been told to scrap remaining imperial measurements and enforce the use of metric?

If so, is the Commission aware that:

a) tens of millions of Britons have no understanding of metric measurements and no good reason to learn,

b) any enforcement will create dangers on the roads, in the home and workplace,

c) resentment against the EU in the UK will almost certainly create public disorder,

d) the imperial system is more logical and convenient, and

e) it is widely used by the UK's principal trading partners, notably the USA and much of the Anglo-Saxon world?

Alternatively, is this proposed enforcement intended to damage the UK's traditional trading patterns in the forlorn hope that it might become even more reliant on EU imports?

Does the Commission agree with the reaction of a UK Government official (quoted in the Sunday Times article) that the UK Government was free to choose when Britain goes metric - the implication being that it might never happen?

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

ANSWER

E-3386/05EN

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (17 October 2005)

The Commission does not confirm the mentioned reports in the British media, inter alia the Sunday Times, 28 August 2005.

The Commission, however, confirms that it has received a number of complaints concerning the implementation by the United Kingdom (UK) of the Council Directive 80/181/EEC of 20 December 1979 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement and on the repeal of Directive 71/354/EEC[1].

In the framework of the usual follow-up of complaints the Commission is in regular contact with the relevant UK authorities.

The Commission refers insofar to its answer to written question P-3144/05 by Mr Wise M.E.P.

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

Refs: [1] Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, 31.5.2001

This question was not well founded:

<<
a) tens of millions of Britons have no understanding of metric measurements and no good reason to learn,
>>

A total over-estimate. Anyway, how did millions of semi-literate and illiterate people cope in Africa in the 1970's. It should be noted that the South African, Zambian and Nigerian programs were almost identical, so the question of racial opproession does not arise.


<<
b) any enforcement will create dangers on the roads, in the home and workplace,
>>
Rubbish - was there any carnage in Ireland when the roadsigns were metricated - No. Were there any accidents in South Africa due to metrication - I was was there - No.



<<
c) resentment against the EU in the UK will almost certainly create public disorder,
>>
Only because Mrs Thatcher hooked metrication to the EU in order to score a few cheap political points.


<<
d) the imperial system is more logical and convenient, and
>>

Now that is utter rubbish!!!!!!!!


<<
e) it is widely used by the UK's principal trading partners, notably the USA and much of the Anglo-Saxon world?
>>
Of the UK's Anglo-Saxon partners South Africa, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States, only the US uses Imperial units, but their gallons are different to those used in the UK so are their tons - also they don't use stones.


In short - an utterly ridiclous question.

The ignorance and presumptiousness of the five assertions (a) - (e) are truly astounding.

Martin said:
"Rubbish - was there any carnage in Ireland when the roadsigns were metricated - No. Were there any accidents in South Africa due to metrication - I was was there - No."

You're comparing chalk and cheese.

I'm sure that when the French Roads were metricated there were not horse related issues.
The scale is very different.

<<<The ignorance and presumptiousness of the five assertions (a) - (e) are truly astounding.>>>

Well said

<<
A total over-estimate. Anyway, how did millions of semi-literate and illiterate people cope in Africa in the 1970's.
>>
If they were semi-literate and illiterate people, they wouldn't have much difficulty coping. It's the engineers, manufacturers, buisnessmen, and traders that use measurements the most, not the ones that can't read.





<<
c) resentment against the EU in the UK will almost certainly create public disorder,
<
Only because Mrs Thatcher hooked metrication to the EU in order to score a few cheap political points.
>>
That may be so, but there's not anything that can be done at this point about what Mrs. Thatcher did. The current British government can't let "public disorder" happen and then blame it on Mrs. Thatcher.




<<
d) the imperial system is more logical and convenient, and
>>
Now that is utter rubbish!!!!!!!!
>>
It depends on your perspective. If you look at the situation scientifically, by examining conversion factors, relations between mass, volume, and length units, the metric system makes more sense. If you look at it from a common man's perspective (non-scientist), the English units are more conveniently sized for day-to-day purposes.

Bud wrote

<<
<<
A total over-estimate. Anyway, how did millions of semi-literate and illiterate people cope in Africa in the 1970's.
>>
If they were semi-literate and illiterate people, they wouldn't have much difficulty coping. It's the engineers, manufacturers, buisnessmen, and traders that use measurements the most, not the ones that can't read.
>>

Illiterates are prime targets for unscrupulous traders. During the 1970's South Africa was a pariah state on account of her Apartheid policies, yet the one thing that she did during both decimalisation in 1961 and metrication ten years later was to ensure that the disadvantaged (ie black) members of society were not exploited as a result of the changes. The UK seems not to haev had the same dilligence in protecting her most disadvantaged members of society when introducing changes of this nature.

And today I talk to my friend who is going to South Africa next Saturday. He has been told to run red lights if things start to look risky.

What a move on.

Bud
If you look at it from a common man's perspective (non-scientist), the English units are more conveniently sized for day-to-day purposes.

metre
My advice, ask the “common” people in metric countries and learn how convenient they find their daily used units. You'll have the surprise of your life.

That's correct - you get things like "the metric foot", "the metric pound" etc.
Nicely pointed out, metre.

<<<That's correct - you get things like "the metric foot", "the metric pound" etc.>>>

I think you are overestimating the significance of these.

All it proves is that in certain applications, it is useful to have a unit between the centimetre and the metre. But in metric you can have 10cm, 20cm, 30cm etc - any division you want, depending on what is most suitable for the application.

<<
That's correct - you get things like "the metric foot", "the metric pound" etc.
>>

... and how much should a "metric foot" be. The French "pied metrique" introduced by Napoleon and abolished in 1840 was 1/3 metre, whereas the "metric foot" used in Switzerland at the same time was 300mm.

I was referring to the colloquial metric psuedo units used commonly in proper metric countries. All the while metric - but chopped up to give friendly sizes that are close to imperial whole sizes. They even named one "the metre" because it was close.

Someone explain to Deniel that the last sentence is a joke.

Re: E.U. Commissioner Verheugen answers a question (well, sort of ) October 27 2005, 12:13 PM

KB
That's correct - you get things like "the metric foot", "the metric pound" etc.
Nicely pointed out, metre.


metre
You got it all wrong KB. These old units came about because people like you could not seamlessly migrate to proper metric ones. It confirms that unlearning is much more difficult than learning something new. That is why mankind is cursed with HABIT. But given enough time even you will learn to be comfortable with one measurement system.

<<<I was referring to the colloquial metric psuedo units used commonly in proper metric countries. All the while metric - but chopped up to give friendly sizes that are close to imperial whole sizes.>>>

I don't think anyone (well almost anyone;-)) will deny the convenience of the sizes of some imperial units, which explains why these metric equivalents exist. These "pseudo units" offer the best of both worlds.

<<
I was referring to the colloquial metric psuedo units used commonly in proper metric countries.
>>

They were in fact legal units in the nineteenth century - in fact when the EU metrication directive came out, certain Dutch market stall holders complained that they had to change from pricing their produce by the "pond" to pricing by the kilogramme.

Re: E.U. Commissioner Verheugen answers a question (well, sort of ) October 27 2005, 2:00 PM


Martin
They were in fact legal units in the nineteenth century - in fact when the EU metrication directive came out, certain Dutch market stall holders complained that they had to change from pricing their produce by the "pond" to pricing by the kilogramme.


metre
Are you saying that the Dutch pond was/is not 500 g?
There is a big difference between keeping an old name for a new metric quantity and carrying on with an odd metricated pound.

<<<There is a big difference between keeping an old name for a new metric quantity and carrying on with an odd metricated pound.>>>

After all, it is the names that people are attacehd to, not the precise quantities. No-one would notice, let alone care, if the pint became 500ml (as long as they weren't still paying the same price as 568ml!) or the pound became 500g

I always thought the 500g pound would catch on in Britain, but there seem to be a lot of things at the deli counter priced by the 100g - maybe a name for that amount will evolve, as I believe there is in Italy

Do you honestly believe that, Andy?

"I don't think anyone (well almost anyone;-)) will deny the convenience of the sizes of some imperial units, which explains why these metric equivalents exist. These "pseudo units" offer the best of both worlds."

I totally an utterly agree. It requires someone with a real knowledge of metric and imperial to understand why. Unfortunately I think metre admitted that his upbringing was "not metric" at all and one can see why he would be confused by such an idea. He will think (probably quite naturally, considering his predicament) that one must replace the other.

<<<Do you honestly believe that, Andy?>>>

That people wouldn't be bothered about a 500ml pint or 500g pound?

Yes. Of course there would be the usual huffing and puffing, but it would quickly be forgotten.

When talk of 500ml "pints" comes up it is always the notion of having to go to the bar and ask for a "half-litre" that people object to.

If the pint changes size slightly, the only issue would be the potential for rip-off

"After all, it is the names that people are attacehd to, not the precise quantities. No-one would notice, let alone care, if the pint became 500ml (as long as they weren't still paying the same price as 568ml!) or the pound became 500g"

If there is a problem with going to a 500 mL pint, then why not adopt the 600 mL pint like in Australia?



"I always thought the 500g pound would catch on in Britain, but there seem to be a lot of things at the deli counter priced by the 100g - maybe a name for that amount will evolve, as I believe there is in Italy"


The 100 g may end up being called a hecto for short. What is the name in Italy? Once pricing per hundred grams takes hold, people will just multiply by 5 the price to get a pound price. They may even start to ask for 500 g. More and more British people are speaking metric these days then before and liking it. Only a small jealous remnant can't let go and tries to blank out what they don't want to hear and see so they can say no one in Britain uses metric.

<<<If there is a problem with going to a 500 mL pint, then why not adopt the 600 mL pint like in Australia? >>>

There would certainly be no complaints about that!

<<<What is the name in Italy?>>>

Can't remember. Someone mentioned it on here a while back

<<<Once pricing per hundred grams takes hold, people will just multiply by 5 the price to get a pound price. They may even start to ask for 500 g.>>>

The reason things like meat and cheese are priced this way is because few people will actually buy a kilo of something at the deli, so it makes sense to break it up into more user-friendly amounts.

I would guess an average amount that people buy is 2 or 300g so its easier to just times the price by 2 or 3 than work it out from the kg price.

I don't know if you have noticed - but the "per pound" pricing is always something like "£1.99", "£3.49" etc whereas the "per 100g/kilo" price is the converted one.

Just thought I might drop that one in and then let Danial tell me that I'm wrong, or something.

Re: E.U. Commissioner Verheugen answers a question (well, sort of ) October 27 2005, 3:19 PM


KB
I totally an utterly agree. It requires someone with a real knowledge of metric and imperial to understand why. Unfortunately I think metre admitted that his upbringing was "not metric" at all and one can see why he would be confused by such an idea. He will think (probably quite naturally, considering his predicament) that one must replace

metre
Put it this way, for people grown up in metric countries old units do not exist in their daily lives. For them 30 cm are just that, they have no special meaning nor is it more convenient than any other length. It is simply the length of whatever he/she measures. If a German asks for a pound, he/she always thinks 500 g likewise his/her French counterpart asking for a livre. The words they use survived courtesy habit and have nothing to do with the original quantity. On those criteria, you and most other people existing in a measurement twilight zone cannot call themselves fluent in metric, or in imperial. Descriptions like metric feet and pounds originated in English speaking countries and mean nothing to anybody else.

If Brits look back at their old units in 100 years, feet inches pounds and pints will make as little sense to them as they do to metric users today. Maybe pounds and pints live on if metricated to 500.

<<<I don't know if you have noticed - but the "per pound" pricing is always something like "£1.99", "£3.49" etc whereas the "per 100g/kilo" price is the converted one.>>>

To be honest I have never ever looked at the per lb price.
Why would I?

metrc, why do you have to say things that are patently wrong? Don't you have any freinds?

Sorry - I meant don't you have any friends from the continent?

Ask them how they see a "pied" or a "zoll"

Go on, ask them.

Firstly - you'll find it equates to metric measures, but
Secondly.....

(by the time you get to "secondly" you'll click, I'm sure of it)