The UK Metric Association has accused the European Commission of “political cowardice” because it has caved in to American and European exporters – supported by the UK Government – and effectively abandoned the objective of a single, rational system of measurement throughout Europe.
The Commission has just published its response to the recent consultation on revising the Units of Measurement Directive. It is a badly written and illogical document, and UKMA has commented on it in the following press release:
The following press release was issued on Wednesday, 27 June:
“Pro-metric group slates EU climb-down
London, 27 June 2007.
The UK Metric Association (UKMA) today accused the European Commission of caving in to pressure from European and American exporters – supported by the UK Government – to be allowed to carry on using imperial and American weights and measures in packaging and product manuals. In its response to the recent consultation the Commission proposes that “supplementary indications” should be allowed indefinitely and that the obligation of the UK to “fix a date” for converting road signs to metric units should be removed.
See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/uni_ms_en.htm
UKMA Chairman, Robin Paice, commented: “This has all the signs of a stitch-up between the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry and the European Commission. The DTI has made it clear that they are implacably opposed to further metrication in the UK, and rather than challenge them, the Commission has bottled out and is proposing to abandon the objective of a single, rational system of measurement used and understood throughout the European Union.”
In its own submission to the Commission*, UKMA had argued that there is a simple solution to the problems allegedly encountered by transatlantic traders in coping with two conflicting labelling regimes (the USA mostly requires dual American/metric units on packages, whereas the EU had intended to require metric-only). All that is needed, said UKMA, is a reciprocal arrangement to accept each other’s labelling for imports and exports. Until such an agreement is reached the EU could unilaterally accept dual-labelling on American imports. Or if that is too difficult, dual labelling could be allowed on all packages and product manuals etc – but not on loose goods priced and weighed out by the trader.
The Commission’s report ignores this last point and attempts to justify its rejection of the mutual recognition argument by suggesting that third countries might complain that it also affected their exports and would be a non-tariff barrier to trade. This argument is clearly disingenuous since it would obviously be possible to devise wording that would accommodate this very minor problem. They thus appear (or pretend) to believe that two systems are cheaper than one.
The Commission has also agreed to support a UK proposal that it should not have to name a date for converting road signs to metric units. Citing both the UKMA cost estimate of £80 million and the Transport Department’s grossly inflated estimate of £800 million, the Commission’s paper comments that imperial road signs have “cultural significance and do not give rise to discomfort which can be considered a major benefit”. They have thus failed completely to understand the benefits of a single system as well as the hidden costs of continuing to muddle through with two systems. They have also ignored UKMA’s argument that the continued existence of imperial road signs is the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of metric measures in the UK in everyday life. “As long as we have miles, yards, feet and inches on the road signs, many people will not adapt to measuring up for curtains and carpets in metres and square metres.”, said Robin Paice.
He added: “Why should the refusal of the Americans to accept the world system condemn the British to endure indefinitely the misery and muddle of incompatible weights and measures in shops and markets. It undermines consumer protection (one of the Commission’s claimed new stated objectives) wastes our children’s education, and just prolongs this “very British mess**.It is a piece of political cowardice.”
ENDS
*This can be seen at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/depot_anwers/c-non-gov-organis/R205.pdf
** “A very British mess”, with foreword by Lord Howe, is published by the UK Metric Association and can be obtained via UKMA’s website at http://www.ukma.org.uk/books/index.htm
Notes for editors:
(a) The UK Metric Association (UKMA) is an independent, non-party political, single issue pressure group which advocates the full adoption of the international metric system (”Système International” – SI) for all official, trade, legal, contractual and other purposes in the United Kingdom as soon as practicable. UKMA is financed entirely by membership subscriptions and personal donations.
(b) Further extensive background information can be found generally on UKMA’s website at www.ukma.org.uk .
(c) The following are available for interview or comment:
- Robin Paice (Chairman) on 023 9275 5268 for telephone interviews
- Roz Denny (Press Officer) on 020 7736 5383 or 0777 039 1581 for interviews in London or by telephone
- Derek Pollard (Secretary) on 020 83746997 or 01304 375854″
—————————————————————
Further comment:
Despite this deeply depressing cave-in by the Commission, there are perhaps two consolations that can be drawn:
- The Commission has at least not accepted the demands of the extreme imperialists (the so-called “metric martyrs”) to go back to selling in pounds and ounces, nor is the UK Government supporting this.
- If these proposals are actually enacted. The EU will effectively cease to have any say in UK weights and measures. It will then be possible to separate the metrication issue from the European issue, and it will be possible to make the case for completing metrication on its merits without having to refute silly arguments about Brussels bureaucrats.
This is really disappointing news. Once again the UK government has shown a lack of will in completing the conversion. Presumably because it considers that any further change will be politically unpopular.
I agree that we should not rely on Brussels to change things and target the UK government. It may be worthwhile reminding them that all of the Commonwealth has managed to convert to metric road signs, even so called “developing countries” have managed it but the UK can’t. Perhaps then this country can be dragged into the 20th Centrury, let alone the 21st Century. Perhaps Gordon Brown and his new team can see sense and speed things up but I suppose that is wishful thinking. After all it requires change -Â something British Governments are not too good at.
The UKMA needs to make sure that the Directive is not amended unless the US FPLA is amended first. All of those companies who claimed it would cost billions to comply with the directive should be warned by the EU to put pressure on the US to amend the FPLA. If they don’t then it should be their punishment if they are forced to endure any costs. If there is a cost burden it is the Americans that are causing it as they are forcing businesses to include FFU when it isn’t needed.
An excerpt from the report below brings attention to the fact that the EU state laws may not be changed even if the Commission agrees to repeal the directive, because of the American refusal at this time to allow metric only labeling.
Report on the public consultation on the
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
on units of measurement (Directive 80/181/EEC)
Concluding, the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT recommends
continued dual measurement labelling, but also gives reasons in 2
paragraphs why it may not happen.
1) “Whilst there is unanimous support from industry for an indefinite
extension of supplementary
markings, Member State governments appear hesitant about an
indefinite extension given the
still large non-tariff trade barriers imposed by the USA to metric-
only labelled goods. It is
clear therefore that specific action on this point will also be
required.
2) There would seem to be sound economic arguments for indefinitely
extending the date for the
use of supplementary indications in Article 3 in Directive
80/181/EEC. However, the
continued existence of non-tariff barriers against metric-only
labelled goods in the USA represents a difficulty and will need to
continue to be addressed bilaterally in the
Commission’s ongoing contacts on regulatory cooperation with the US
authorities”.
I am pro-EU, but recognise that it has become a shambolic mess, hopelessly adrift from its original purpose, as this craven act shows. We are well rid of it. Now we can concentrate on convincing people of the benefits of metrication for its own sake, free of pressure from the EU. We should metricate because WE want to, not because of some half-baked measure from Brussels. Metrication should be by the will of the British people. We need to refocus and regroup so that our resources can be targeted on this objective, without wasting any more time on the EU.
Like Jeff I am also generally pro-EU but since the shambles called “the constitution” they’ve become gutless in some areas so this isn’t that much of a surprise, but it is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it was useful to have an EU which was willing to do what is right regardless of the noise made by some extremely vocal minorities… but on the other hand a few bad decisions will do more harm in the longer term.
We may still have an uphill battle in persuading the UK government to change though as there will no doubt be talk of an election and won’t want to do anything too unpopular. The original responses to the consultation seems to show that on the whole people are happy to convert to metric but it’s only the ones who don’t want to who feel strongly enough to speak up, its unfortunate that no matter how poor their argument is they still seem to get heard above the voices of reason.
The challenge now might be to do more to do what the government should have been doing and raising awareness of the simplicity of metric compared to imperial and raising public awareness of how much their simple mistakes in, for instance, the supermarket cost them and the ongoing costs of maintaining the two systems – perhaps when people realise how much money is wasted that could be better spent on education and health they might be a little less willing to listen to the pro-imperial propaganda in the tabloid press!
I understand that there may be costs associated with changing manuals and labels, but there is a way to do it cheaply. The EU could allow an extended but not indefinite time period for presently existing documents to continue to carry dual units. But they can also require that anything new or updated have the non-SI units removed.
If a new product comes out on the market and a manual or label hasn’t been written, the EU can require that the new documentation be metric only. If an older manual is modified or updated for any reason, then non-SI units can be removed. In these two instances, there is no cost due to metrication.
As far as I know, the US FPLA only affects product labels on prepackaged goods, mostly found in supermarkets. I don’t believe at present there is any law requiring the use of non-SI units as a supplementary unit in any other form of documentation, such as manuals. Thus the EU directive can have the effect of forcing dual units and non-SI units out of existence where it presently is not required.
Has anyone really researched this? If we discover that US law only affects a small part of goods and services produced, then the EU directive need only be modified to deal with those areas where it does come in conflict with EU law but only when the US side ends restrictions on metric only.
Another problem area is the UK situation with derogations. To the best of my knowledge the EU has allowed the UK to continue using non-SI units for road signs, pints for milk in returnable bottles, pints in pubs and acres for land registration.
However, despite these derogations, there is a big difference between not forcing these areas to change to metric and allowing metric to be used in these areas if wanted. The EU directive doesn’t have to force the UK to set a date but it should force all member states to allow metric in all instances. Thus even if there is no national plan to change road signs, it shouldn’t be illegal for those who want them to have them. It shouldn’t be illegal for those who want to use litres in pubs to do so.
Like it or not, in the face of apparent unanimity among member states to prolong the permission of supplementary indications, a climb-down was virtually inevitable. But the quid pro quo should be to endorse and emphasise that they are supplementary and no more. Also, the Commission’s proposals do not make it clear whether this is no more than a permission, or whether it grants licence to mandate the use of supplementary indications in some areas. Two examples are the current EU directive which requires kilo-calories to be shown alongside kJ on nutrition labelling and the UK regulations requiring mpg plus l/100km to be shown in car specifications.
For once the EU has done something commendable. They have realised that not all Britons wants to be ‘metricated’ and I congratulate this decision.
Tabitha,
we already are metricated! All they’ve done is to prolong the pain of using both systems. Once we get rid of the imperial conversions you’ll have to use metric; and then perhaps you’ll understand.
Ok Dave, I’ll correct myself.
Not all Britons want to be ‘fully metricated’.
By the way, when you say, ‘Once we get rid of imperial conversions’…, what do you mean. Will it become illegal to state your height in feet and inches? Will there be a UKMA patrol officer making sure everyone uses metric?
Finally, I’ll never understand the necessity to be fully metricated. Please feel free to try and persuade me to change my mind. It won’t happen though.
Having just stumbled across this blog and read this article only, I obviously am basing my opinions on what is written here. In this instance I find myself agreeing with Tabitha Jones. She is right when she says that not all Britons want to be metricated fully.
Plenty of British people will tell you that.
When I say, ‘Once we get rid of imperial conversions’ what I mean is that sooner or later retailers will tire of labelling all their loose produce with two prices. They will realise – as some supermarkets already have – that you only need one price to define how much something costs and you only need one weight to define how much you are selling. Once that becomes the norm, everyone will have to think in metric for all their shopping. Once they get used to it (after perhaps 24 hours), they’ll wonder what they made such a fuss was about.
Found this on another website:
EC backpeddles on threat to mile and pint
20 September 2005)
In an interview with EUpolitix.com on 19 September,
European Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry
Günter Verheugen denied that he intends to force the
UK to implement metric measures. He said: “I am not
pressuring the UK to go metric. As long as I am in
Brussels I will not touch the issue. Full stop … I
personally have a lot of sympathy for the pint and for
the mile in the UK … what is the problem here for
the internal market. Really, what is the problem?�
It appears to me that the recent hoopla about the 2010 deadline being extended indefinitely is the work of one person…Günter Verheugen. He may have made up his mind long before the surveys of earlier this year and just used some of the anti-metric only comments to justify his decision. As you see, in 2005 he was a force for the preservation of British units.
We can only hope he won’t be in Brussels long and the next person will not push for a change to the directive. Also there is hopefully a good chance the Commission will vote Verheugen’s proposal down and the deadline will remain.
I comment on this remark from Tabitha Jones:
“Will there be a UKMA patrol officer making sure everyone uses metric?”
The UK metric association are endevouring to achieve its aims by reasoned argument. We present this on our web site and encourage others to use British democracy and that most sacred freedom to speak out to the media, politicians and others in society who have the power to bring about change.
We will stand or fall entirely by the merits of our case.
The same cannot be said of opponents of metrication who manifestly are prepared to manipulate public opinion by misleading publicity campaigns (qv recent press stories causing confusion about the true legal position over allowed units for trade all of which were perpetrated by the so called “metric martyrs” campaign).