Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It isn't ideal bringing politics into this, but in my opinion it isn't possible to discuss it without.

This is a political distraction designed to distract BOTH sides (pro & anti Tory government). It is working fantastically since people are discussing this rather than the PM committing crimes, getting caught, and then changing the ethics code to avoid resignation (and multiple no confidence letters from back-benchers).

Ultimately this is a consultation with no teeth. Industry are against it since it will add significant cost and regulatory problems, and with the UK already struggling under Brexit importation issues, it would be very self-destructive. It only really appeals to a very old, very pro-Tory demographic, that is rapidly disappearing.

But again this is all a political distraction, they will do this consultation, milk it as much as they can, and then pocket it. Or just make it officially optional which nobody will utilize but have some technicality they can point to.

"Industry are against it since it will add significant cost and regulatory problems, and with the UK already struggling under Brexit importation issues, it would be very self-destructive."

That isn't the case is it. Lots of people with vested interests say there are issues, but it turns out they just want government to ease the path for their operations and bring in lots of immigrant lorry drivers so they don't have to pay a proper wage. Pandering to exporters and big business is why Brexit happened in the first place.

There is no reason for the EU directive and it should be scrapped. The market can then decide what weights and measures are appropriate for their supply chain. That allows an increase in competition which is always a good idea.

Very likely little will change other than milk will return to just being in pints, beer will have a pint label on it and we can sell things to the USA in the measures the USA uses, while potentially avoiding the relabelling required for US imports.

The UK import mechanism is entirely under the UK's control. If it is onerous then now we are out of the EU we can streamline it. Given our very strong consumer laws we don't need the 'hard shell' approach so beloved by the EU. The extensive liability of the retailer will ensure standards are maintained via back pressure in the supply chain.

There has never been a single suggestion by government that imperial measures will be required. Just that their use won't be banned as the primary measure - as it is now.

This is complete nonsense. There are many distinct advantages to using the same weights and measures as the majority of the world, except the US (not excepting the US military, that have been using metric measurements since the early 80s).

There is literally no requirement for this "inquiry" and it's entirely about ruffling up the Tory/leave fools.

"Pandering to exporters", like the Scottish salmon farmers and the other agricultural exporters, like the manufacturers that now have to fill in EU custom forms and don't even have the benefit of a supposed US market.

Leaving the EU was always a nonsense, from the same people that think "Fog in Channel, continent cut off" is true. EU doesn't need the UK, the UK cut off its nose to spite its face by leaving its primary market, both economically and geographically.

There is literally no advantage to returning to imperial measures from metric.

There is no one, either in importing, or exporting, or domestic industry calling for a return to metric measures. What's next? Return to pre-decimal currency?

Be honest with us, you've never in your life thought about switching back to the imperial system until it was recently mentioned. In other words it was a complete non-issue for you until someone made it an issue for you.

> There is no reason for the EU directive and it should be scrapped. The market can then decide what weights and measures are appropriate for their supply chain. That allows an increase in competition which is always a good idea.

Let's run with this idea. Perhaps the government should invest in the development of several new competing standards, all in the name of competition. Do you think this would be a good idea?

> The UK import mechanism is entirely under the UK's control.

If that were true, the Northern Ireland Protocol wouldn't be the political disaster that it is.

The brexit comments I find interesting, but pretending the metric system is meaningless or without reason is just daft.

It's called standards. And standards make life easier. Shockingly poor opinion on an IT forum where we get to experience good and poor standards on an extreme scale.

> beer will have a pint label on it and we can sell things to the USA in the measures the USA uses

You are likely unaware of it, but the pints and gallons used by the US are entirely different from the pints in Blighty. One of the reason why using customary measures has been discontinued by anyone smart.

Relabelling won't really be avoided as the US measurements are slightly different to the Imperial measurements. A US pint is about 95ml less than an Imperial pint

Last i looked the US gallon was different from Imperial gallon.

Yes, a classic dead cat

I don’t follow UK politics. What are the crimes?

Allegedly breaking own just-introduced rules on gatherings for staff parties during pandemic. (Is what I assume GP is referring to.)

There’s nothing alleged about it. The police charged him for it. And he accepted it.

Ok. (Police charging someone with something doesn't mean guilty, but fine.) I haven't followed it, I think it's unintersting, I was just explaining what other commenter was referring to.

Is that what passes for "committing crimes" in the UK these days?

It’s particularly galling when the prime minister introduces very strict regulations, that even the queen has to abide by (infamously mourning for her husband alone), and then members of the administration throw large parties at the prime minister’s residence.

Sure, it’s not that bad from an absolute perspective, and probably no one was hurt by it, but the public generally expects individual members of the government to abide by the law no matter what.

Of course, the other crime, that requires him to resign is lying to Parliament, except he changed the ministerial code so he wouldn’t have to resign.

Maybe Boris Johnson can go tell people who couldn’t mourn their loved ones, or people who got fined for mourning their loved ones, or grand parents that couldn’t meet their grand kids, etc. how him breaking the rules so he could have some parties and drinks that prevented them from doing all of that was not that bad from an absolute perspective.

I only meant that it was unlikely that anyone got COVID as a result of the parties. The fact that all those people were unable to be with their loved ones while Boris was at an office party is absolutely horrible, and the fact that he didn’t abide by his own rules is reason to resign, as I see it.

Lots of politicians in America violated their own stay at home orders, like Gavin Newsome. While I agree it’s bad, hypocritical, what have you, I wouldn’t say it’s “committing crimes”—even just from the perspective of expecting to be understood by others. I read the OP and thought I had missed some real news.

It was quite literally a crime in the case of Boris Johnson, which is why I called it “committing crimes.” For Gavin Newsom, my understanding is that it technically was abiding by the rules because the restaurant was open air, but I’m not super familiar with the case. If it actually was against the rules, he should have resigned and let someone who shares his political views but didn’t break the regulations be the new governor. A political leader should at least be legally unimpeachable, and ideally morally too.

The problem with the CA recall is that the only major opponents had a very different political position to him, but switching the state’s political control over a personal scandal seems absurd.

You're playing semantics, and worse you're playing semantics with people from a different country, of course they're going to use words differently than you.

With that said, I think there's a hole in your reasoning -- If the people who enacted these laws had found you breaking them they would damn well have called you a criminal for doing so.

No, OP is playing semantics. “Committing crimes” has a meaning in ordinary usage, and it doesn’t encompass violating administrative rules. Here in Maryland, a speeding ticket is technically a misdemeanor violation of the criminal code. Nobody would call that “committing crimes”—because that would be confusing to other people.

Yes, breaking the law is considered committing a crime. It might not be a particularly big crime and likely wouldn't normally warrant more than a warning. But when the people who just passed the law immediately go and break it, the crime itself isn't the issue. The problem is the attitude that the law doesn't apply to those in charge. It is literally the sort of thing that has caused revolutions. People want a just society.

Under convention, a British MP that is convicted of a crime is expected to resign. No Prime Minister has ever been issued a fine or committed a crime before.

Johnson (and the UK treasurer) were both issued a fine for disobeying the COVID restrictions, while in Number 10 (and 11) the official residences.

They offended numerous times, including immediately before a press conference to deliver more onerous restrictions, and before the funeral of Prince Phillip, where the Queen (like many others) was mourning alone.

The Queen wasn't required to keep the COVID restrictions (she is literally "above the law"), but she dutifully obeyed them.

It's not the nature of the crime, it's the complete lack of remorse or even the perception that there was any harm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com