Thanks Paul, great link. That corporate power dominates the EU is something I think more and more people are becoming aware of.

Peter really does live in a strange little world of his own.

A world in which 'diversity' is great when it means EU-enforced regional assemblies, but terrible when it allows cheesemongers to decide how to sell their stilton.

A world in which 'democracy' is worth going to the wire for when it comes to the dreadful top-down imposition of an English Parliament onto the struggling natives of Cheshire, but worth ignoring when it comes to people who might want to drink pints, rather than half litres, of beer.

A world in which history and cultural particularity are excellent reasons for resisting English governance, but terrible reasons for resisting European governance.

A world in which enforcing global standardisation of everything, from the centre, with no consultation, is both 'progressive' and 'rational.'

Why don't you stand for parliament, Peter? Let's see how many of the sturdy local yeoman support your point of view. (Am I still allowed to say 'yeoman', by the way, or has that been legislated away in the name of efficiency too? It is a bit English.)

On an entirely separate point, no-one has yet mentioned the real driver behind European - and indeed global - standardisation: corporate power. This stuff happens because the multinationals who write European legislation find it makes their work easier:

http://www.corporateeurope.org

Given the choice - which of course they never are, in case they make the wrong one - the diverse peoples of the European continent would doubtless have been happy to keep doing things their own way - and Europe would be a more colourful, diverse and, hell, even democratic place for it.

I live in Denmark and right now we have a big debate because the judges in the common market can now cancel laws in denmark regarding who is allowed to come into denmark.

The discussion is that it seems that judges are making decisions and not politcians, and that judges cannot be fired. If the Lisbon treaty goes through then even more power will be given to the courts of the common market -

As in your discussion about acres, decisions were made many years ago by politicians. They have been just sitting in at meets in Brussels like the spectators in the muppet show!

"Across Europe, companies and organisations take it for granted that
they will have to produce materials in English; we are not expected to
make that concession."

Not true.  I used to work for a medical diagnostics company who sold their immunodiagnostics across Europe in vials labelled in English - it made sense because all doctors and scientists speak English.

However, in their wisdom, the EU brought in some regulations that made it a legal requirement for us to label the vials in the langauge of the market we were selling it in.  Specialist diagnostics is not a huge market so it just wasn't worth our while (the expense and effort) to produce labels for the thousands of products so that we could sell in Greece or Portugal or Finland.  So we didn't bother.  So people in those countries - cancer patients - now suffer for want of diagnostics that are not available.  It's may not be such a problem for the massive pharmaceutical companies, but to the small innovative outfits that can't afford to send their 1000s of products to market in 30 different languages it is.  And it therefore stiffles R&D and diagnosis of life-threatening disease.

Having said all that I wouldn't subscribe to Peter's argument that everyone should be "obliged" to change to English ("it might be a bit of a pain for a few weeks but that's all").  I just wouldn't bother legislating and leave it up to the relevant authorities as to whether doctors can use English-labelled diagnostics (and the relevant authoritiy is not the EU, it is the national government and professional associations of the country in question).  That sort of free-market, deregulated freedom to think has been all but extinguished by the EU.

Anthony - as Peter implies you appear to be arguing against the principle set out in the Magna Carta that there should be a standard system of weights and measures throughout the country.  There is a good reason why the Barons considered that to be of fundamental importance.  There is a similarly good reason why this is one of the few powers we knowingly gave to the Common Market in 1974.

How is using a hectare a denial of history?   What is ahistorical is to suggest the acre we use now has existed for 700 years.  It has only  existing for 130 years, following the passing of the Weights and Measures Act.  But then, scratch beneath the surface and consistantly what you find is that Britain's historical traditions tend to date from a time when we were ruled over by a bunch of Germans.  History consistently shows us not how unique we are but how interdependent we are within the rest of Europe.

Can't export British land?  Well, a large amount of it isn't owned by the British these days.  Much of London, including most of the block of flats where I currently have a toehold, is now owned by congolomerates based in Hong Kong.  The land market is a global one.  Personally I don't have a problem with that - my problem is the fact that we don't have a system of land value taxation to clawback all the wealth generated by it all.  But what is more significant: the fact that County Hall is measured in hectares, or the fact that it is owned by a Japanese businessman?  It seems to me that by obsessing about things like weights and measures we consistently miss the bigger picture.

Gareth - the reason I don't speak in esperanto is because esperanto isn't the standard.  The standard, much to the chagrin of the French, is English.  This is crucial because the fact is it works both ways.  Across Europe, companies and organisations take it for granted that they will have to produce materials in English; we are not expected to make that concession.

We could go down the route, as people here seem to be suggesting, of attempting to preserve the tertiary aspects of our culture in aspic.  Of course that would be an exceedingly French thing to do.  It is likely to be as futile as the French's attempts as well.

I know you don't accept them Gareth, which is why you are frantically avoiding the points of principle I have highlighted

Units of measure play an immense role in the commercial environment, which is now globalised - even you have accepted that point. You are defending the retention of imperial measures on cultural grounds, which is a smokescreen designed to deflect attention from this principle.

Diversity? Who mentioned diversity (oh I forgot, you did!) - what relevance does that have to the use of measuring systems?

I find your barbed comment ironic because you know better than most that I am very much in favour of a more diverse society; who needs the straight jacket of imposed "Englishness" when you can have many different more localised traditions?

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

I don't accept your argument Peter.  We already use metric, and we also use imperial.  There's no problem, and I'm happy to use both.  They are useful for different things.  Thanks.  Keep your petty legislating to yourself.

I'm not advocating the scrapping of metric.  But there's no need to abolish imperial.  You wouldn't legislate a language out of existence, so why do it with a weights and measures system; what purpose does it serve?

Why are you so opposed to diversity?

Gareth

Once again you have instinctively sidestepped the valid points I have put to you and tried to bluster your way out by personalising the issues. You know very well I wasn't referring to your circumstances individually but was merely posing a simple question in terms of the role played by measuring systems in everyday life.

You and I will still get from A to B safely and buy our groceries whether metric or imperial units are used. Britishness (or Englishness) would not be diminished by the adoption of metric units - e.g. Pints would still be pulled in pubs in our lifetimes at least and probably much longer.

Magna Carta illustrates how there must eventually be an element of compulsion to reach a common standard and that principle holds good in the modern world. It is the laissez faire approach adopted by successive UK administrations that has landed the UK in the worst of all possible situations, saddled with two systems.

There is really only one logical and objective route to follow:

Either - try to persuade the rest of the world of the merits of the imperial system so they adopt it - or if that strategy fails (because the argument is weak), adopt the metric system in a meaningful fashion with an unequivocal timetable for completion of the process

It is time (40 odd years and counting) to stop sitting in half-way limbo, which is the same situation the USA finds itself in. I'm also sure you don't need reminding that when the UK officially opted to adopt the metric system in 1965 it was a member of EFTA, rather than the EEC. The EU is only involved now because it makes sense to have one uniform measuring system across a single economic zone, another of those things that even most Eurosceptics accept as beneficial to the UK

@britologywatch: "Tell me, Peter, is there a correlation between your preference for metric and your denial of English nationhood in favour of regionalism?"

Yes David, they share features like common sense and rational thinking.

I see we have already reached (as most debates about this topic usually do) the "I can make a more ridiculous suggestion about the properties of different measuring systems than you can" stage.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

Britology Watch makes a very valid point.  For every day use base twelve is a far more useful than base ten - far better for things like currency, clocks, weights and measures, things that people use everyday and calculate in their heads.

Or, as BW says, base sixteen for that matter.  They're much more human systems.  Unfortunately kids nowadays can only understand things in base ten, because all other systems are eschewed in the name of progress and EU politics.  We're all poorer as a result.  

I am with Toque - aka Gareth Young - on this one. We stand on the acre, or is it a square yard. Or even a meter. There is a case for saying that if you want to sell a two pint pot of yogurt you must also say what it is in litres so that those from elsewhere in the EU know what it is they are tucking into. But you can't export British land. I have no objection to stipulating that it is also measured in square kilometeres or is it hectares? But - and this is the big point - we should respect and enjoy history. 700 years of acres. This calls for awe not a thoughtless dismissal without any political debate. Where are the rural MPs? Gone on holiday everyone... There is an incredible loss of nerve and self-belief here. Hmmm, perhaps it calls for a constitutional revolution - no, seriously!

What, Toque, and change an English motto into a Latin one - mais, non! Personally, I've got nothing against the rest of the world adopting the 'imperial' system of weights and measures if they want to, which would also be 'universal'. Save us from hundreds of grams instead of ounces, or the endless .33333's and .666666s of decimality! Maybe that's what the apostle was thinking of when he identified '666' as the sign of the Antechrist (pace Damian O'Loan!).

Duodecimal systems make far more sense, anyway: more divisible and proceed the 'natural' way we divide things up - by halves, thirds, quarters, sixes, etc. That's why we use it for time. Admittedly, not all / many of the British / English weights and measures are duodecimal; but even the sixteen-based unit of the pound exemplifies the same, human-dimensioned 'logic': it's how we double up - one, two, four, eight, sixteen. And, in any case, didn't the Americans send their astronauts to the moon - successfully, unless you believe the conspiracy theories - using imperial units, or their American equivalent, which they still use to this day (or correct me if I'm wrong).

Tell me, Peter, is there a correlation between your preference for metric and your denial of English nationhood in favour of regionalism? Because the British / imperial units are really English, aren't they? 

Since it doesn't respect diversity the EU should consider changing its motto from "United in Diversity" to E pluribus unum.

Why aren't you telling me this in Esperanto James, or is universalism only good where it suits you?

Heck, let's all drive on the right and standardise our spelling like the Americans, and lets call coriander cilantro, and courgettes zucchinis.  Let's eliminate cultural differences entirely.   And we can all live in eco-towns, happily ever after.

Our identity is not only defined by uniqueness (group identities are defined by sameness), but if you eliminate everything unique about an identity, it ceases to be a functioning identity. 

I love visiting other countries and discovering their difference, in fact that's why I go; and I'm sure the millions of visitors to Britain love discovering the uniqueness of here. 

Do you think any normal person on the continent (ie not a politician) cares less whether people in Britain drink pints or buy pounds of cheese?  Of course they don't, and neither should you.

Because if they're not peculiar, or British in particular, then they are not particularly British, but are instead common universal symbols.

Universalism?  How ghastly!

Back during the Enlightenment, the British (English and Scots alike) used to celebrate universalism.  Then we got infected by all those Romantic bastards who fooled us into thinking our identity could only be defined by "uniqueness".  It is utter tosh.

What I really don't understand is why imperialists don't insist on a proper, British system for measuring information in the face of the dreadful metric system of bytes.  Decimal?  Binary?  All our computers should be based on the standard page of a book in the British Library and be in base 17.  It is the only way to save our national pride in the 21st century.

I don't think Britain does remain steadfast in its peculiarity.  America?  I lived in Canada and they drink pints too.  Admitedly they have switched to kg and km/hr but they still measure their own weight in lbs (but funnily enough they don't know what a stone is) and measure their height in feet and inches.   They've perhaps been quicker in converting than us because of the powerful French lobby.

I'm not advocating a return to imperial, just let people use whatever measurements they like, business and science carry on regardless.  The heavy hand of government is not required.  Anyway, what the hell does it matter to you how I measure myself or what units I use to buy cheese - that's a contract between me and the scale manufacturer or the cheesemonger.  MEPs should get a life and they might find people are less EU-phobic as a result.

If the EU advocated a ten hour day, with each hour divided into 100 Nu-minutes, I have a feeling you'd be all for it.

Yes Gareth but you're still avoiding the issue with your abstract reflections.

Imagine if the nanos and micros you work in were, due to historical precedent, peculiar to the UK and so everytime you submitted work outside the UK you had to convert them to the units used by everybody else - tiresome but possible, until you made a mistake that ended up costing either a lot of money or worse still somebody's life.... and it happens; just ask the poor sod who sent that satellite into the sun because he was calibrating in imperial rather than the metric units used universally by the scientific community.

What's more you'll still get to the pub and back and have your beer and cheese whether it's measured in km or miles, kg or lbs. The world wouldn't fall in on you if you were obliged to change to metric - it might be a bit of a pain for a few weeks but that's all.

The point raised by James is valid; why is it that everywhere else inheriting thecultural legacy of British imperial measuring systems (India, Australia, Canada et al) has managed to change over to metric but dear old blighty steadfastly retains its peculiarity - words like stubborn intransigence spring to mind?

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

I'm a scientist Peter, I know. I work in a global community.

I work in micros and nanos. But I still buy my cheese by the lb, I walk 100 yards to the pub to add to my 12 stone by drinking my beer in pints, and I drive my car in miles per hour (after I've sobered up). And I give an inch and the EU takes a mile, and undermines the EU project for no good reason in the process.

@Toque: "common universal"

Gareth - I think that's the general idea. Units designed to define and precisely measure physical attributes tend to work better if they are common and universal.

We live in a global community now, a well established trend that cannot be reversed, so it follows that units of measure "peculiar" to just one small portion of that community should fall out of use. Seems like a common sense approach to me.

If my memory serves me right, an integral element of the Magna Carta, a document of some historical and cultural significance I believe, was devoted to standardising (and therefore abolishing outlawed) units of measure?

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

"Why does Britishness (or Englishness for that matter) always have to equate with being "peculiar"?"

Because if they're not peculiar, or British in particular, then they are not particularly British, but are instead common universal symbols.  It's about cultural distinctiveness, identity.

Hands off the groat!

Bring back the rod, pole or perch!

they are happy to see things that are peculiarly British abolished for absolutely no good reason.

Why does Britishness (or Englishness for that matter) always have to equate with being "peculiar"?

It could be reversed - if the EU as a whole agreed to do so.  In that sense certainly it is the pooling of sovereignty.

Two things though: a) why would we want to? and b) this is as a result not of the Lisbon Treaty, or Nice or Amsterdam or Maastricht or even the SEA, but of the original Treaty of Rome which we had a referendum about in 1975. We agreed to pool sovereignty on this area 33 years ago. Thatcher knew exactly what she was doing in 1979 - making it someone else's problem.

As for specific Lib Dem policy, I have no idea.  But I suspect that we would argue that this is a price well worth paying and that imperial measurements are a dreadful anachronism.

My Tory supporting grandfather was a passionate advocate of metrication, but then he was an engineer.  He used metrication to defeat Hitler!  His response to Mark Francois would probably have been to punch him on the nose.

It's this sort of thing that really annoys people about the EU. 

I'm not what you'd call a royalist but I was pissed off that they removed the Imperial Crown mark from our pint glasses and replaced it with a CE mark.  

Why?  300 years of tradition swept away because politicians don't give a damn - and then they turn around and start whining on about Britishness when they are happy to see things that are peculiarly British abolished for absolutely no good reason.

Isn't the key point here that this has been a British decision taken by the government? If so, can it be reversed? What do the Lib-Dems think? Can Quoquemque (apols - Quaequam) enlighten us?

So now, instead of acres of red tape, the UK's farmers will have to deal with hectares of it - 2.471-times as much, in fact! It's an accountant's, lawyer's and bureaucrat's dream, but a nightmare - sorry, cauchemar - for the rest of us. We could always just ignore them, I suppose.

I've just googled the relevant directive (kudos to the Sun for showing its working for once) and it would appear to have been agreed in 1979 under Margaret Thatcher. Indeed, it looks like successive Tory governments kept pushing it back, first to 1989, then 1999. In 2000, Labour then kicked it into the long grass again, extending it to 2009.

I'm sure the EU would have enabled us to keep doing this, every ten years, until Armageddon. In fact, and the Sun tacitly admit this, it appears to have not been pushed back again because the UK government didn't object.

In short, this sounds like a sorry tale about the UK government's "euro-sausage" mentality, but it doesn't really illustrate anything about the EU itself at al.