And as usual, because I post a reply it's being twisted and the subjects been changed, all I said was we went decimal in 71 and weren't part of the EEC until a few years after that date....... Oh yawnnnnn
Surely we still use Imperial measures? I don`t remember a law being passed that committed us to metric measurement.
Such is the nature of gardeners corner, or any free discussion. It's quite common for tangents to occur. I see gardeners corner as a bit like a virtual pub. Conversations are natural and fluid and often end up drifting into many different subjects. They're allowed to just flow with no intervention unless someone really steps out of line, which is rare, in which case the landlord or one of his cronies steps in to prevent any bother.
"The treaty of accession to the European Economic Community (EEC), which the United Kingdom joined in 1973, obliged the United Kingdom to incorporate into domestic law all EEC directives, including the use of a prescribed SI-based set of units for many purposes within five years. By 1980 most pre-packaged goods were sold using the prescribed units. Mandatory use of prescribed units for retail sales took effect in 1995 for packaged goods and in 2000 for goods sold loose by weight. The use of "supplementary indications" or alternative units (generally the traditional imperial units formerly used) was originally to have been permitted for only a limited period. However, that period had to be extended a number of times due to public resistance, until in 2009 the requirement to ultimately cease use of traditional units alongside metric units was finally removed." One of the effects of going metric, going from 240 pence to the pound to 100 pence in the pound was automatic inflation and things basically costing more.
It looks like the whole rematch thing has been put to bed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36754376 Basically the petition calling for a rerun of the referendum has been rejected.
As I said a number of pages back, it would have to be rejected as nobody had taken any interest in the petition for the month previous to the referendum and the petition can't be retrospective. In your above BBC link:- "The online petition gained more signatures than any other on the parliamentary website in the wake of the EU referendum result. It had been set up by William Oliver Healey ahead of the referendum and had been signed by 22 people at the time of the result." There is a way for it to have been taken notice of, and that would be if there were in excess of 20 million signatures. As 16.1 million voted to Remain the petition could have had all those signatures on it and it would still not be a valid argument.
I do hope Andrea Loathsome doesn't win the leadership vote. She doesn't have any relevant experience to be PM and I think it would be a disaster to put her in charge during a crisis. I hope May wins it because I believe she'll steady the ship and she strikes me as a woman who won't take any poo from the eurocrats.
I hope you're right, merleworld, but there was an interesting piece by a "independent" political analyst on the BBC about the possibility of Therasa May possibly dragging it out rather than getting on with it under the excuse of doing "some hard bargaining! until the UK political scene changes. I don't give it much validity as she would face a barrage of criticism and pressure to get on with triggering Article 50 if she tried to delay it...........food for, cynical, thought.
I dont agree with rushing in, but at the same time I do think whoever is the next PM should trigger article 50 as soon as appointed. Lets face it, hard bargaining cannot begin until then anyway regarding the EU.
