And some bad news!
recieved in response to an email someone on A.C.E sent to his local MEP
Thank you for your email addressed to Stuart Agnew MEP. He has asked me to reply on his behalf.
I can confirm that Stuart Agnew MEP and his fellow UKIP MEPs are very strongly against this proposed legislation and will vote against it. Our MEPs are opposed to the very principle of an unelected European Commission being the sole originator of all EU law, not least because it regularly produces repressive legislation like this without proper consultation or impact analysis.
However, our very great concern in this matter is the naivety of organisations that oppose the legislation, like the Association of Car Enthusiasts, who are drawing attention to this disaster in the making but seem to have very little understanding of the realities of the EU legislative process. I found this on the ACE website:
“… as shown later in this article, This is going to happen unless a member of the EC Parliament forces reconsideration.”
This is an astonishing assertion, given that the Commission generates the legislation and the European Parliament is merely a rubber stamping institution for approving it. People need to understand that there are 754 MEPs in the European Parliament of which the UK has just 72. Many of the 72 are EU enthusiasts and cannot be relied upon to vote in the best interests of our country on legislation like this. A single MEP hasn’t a cat in hell’s chance of getting a ‘reconsideration’ of this legislation. There is no actual debate in the European Parliament. Speaking time has to be applied for in advance and is allocated according to the size of the political group to which the individual MEP belongs. This may be as little as 1.5 minutes. The agenda of the Parliament is controlled by the Commission’s bureaucrats and MEPs may only speak to the items on that agenda. There are no private members bills, such as we have at Westminster.
MEPs may only 1. Try to amend legislation or 2. Vote it down as a whole. Both of these options, to be successful, require widespread support from MEPs from other EU countries. This kind of support seldom happens and the voting down of legislation as a whole almost never happens. MEPs from the other nation states tend to be much more pro-EU and usually support the Commission’s proposals.
What I am trying to tell you is that this is going to be a very uphill battle, especially as the proposals have gone so far down the line. Unfortunately, this is now the form of ‘government’ that increasingly is running our country. Voters need to wake up to this and stop supporting political parties that are committed to EU membership, which is so damaging to our country’s interests and is such a clear threat to democracy itself.
We have received many emails on this subject and we share the concerns raised. Our MEPs will vigorously oppose this legislation within the constraints mentioned above.
We need to do as much as we can to object to this
so get emailing your local MPs, MEPs with your objections
http://www.writetothem.com/
http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs.html
http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your ... C360238A80
An example letter whatever you do don't copy and past this but instead write something similar in your own words otherwise it will just end up filed in the rubbish!
MEP's
Address
Here
Dear [Insert Name Here],
I am writing to you to raise my deep concerns over proposed legislation regarding routine roadworthiness testing in the EU. The proposal in question is intended to harmonise the testing requirements across the Union to ease cross-border sales, while improving road safety.
I'm sure you will agree that this is a laudable aim. However, were this legislation to come into force it would adversely affect the large, longstanding modified car industry, the large longstanding Historic car industry and the general motoring public within the UK, by means of restricting the alterations that can be carried out and increasing the cost of roadworthiness tests (MoT tests in the UK).
The proposed legislation requires all car manufacturers to provide minute detail concerning the construction of every car – down to the size of the spare wheel and the divisions on the speedometer – and requires that testers have access to this information in order to ensure that these details remain unchanged year on year. As such, even minor alterations to a vehicle will result in a failure of the roadworthiness test.
It follows that this development will require a very significant investment in IT equipment at test stations, the creation of a national database with a manufacturer's record for each individual car (not each model of car) – and of course ongoing maintenance of this database, which will in itself not be a small cost. Also, these details will be exceptionally hard to obtain for cars already in existence – for example, which authority will take responsibility for recording the manufacturing details of every Mini ever produced, now that the Rover group is no more? This could present a significant problem to the Historic Vehicle fraternity.
In addition, the legislation requires roadworthiness test centres to test such items as brake fluid and shock absorbers. The addition of these tests will increase the amount of time taken to test each car, inevitably driving up the cost of testing – while also requiring MoT test stations (many of which are small independent businesses) to invest in a significant quantity of extra equipment to enable them to continue to offer MoT tests.
The UK easily has in excess of 2 million owners of modified cars, with a value to the economy conservatively estimated to be £20bn. The 2011 Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs survey of members found that over 28,000 people were employed in the Historic vehicle industry, with a value of £4.3bn – also creating exports worth £1bn. 57% of these businesses are over 20 years old, and another 52% are expecting their businesses to grow within the next 5 years.
As can be seen, the world of modified and historic vehicles makes a considerable contribution to the UK's economy as a whole, as well as the employment figures. I appreciate that Historic and Modified cars may not be to your taste – however, much like standard cars, the vast majority of these cars are owned by responsible, law-abiding citizens who only wish to enjoy driving something slightly out of the ordinary.
Historic cars represent a tangible link to the past of this country, while modifying motor vehicles has long been a part of our heritage, this is exactly how many now prestige car manufacturers actually began – this is one of the reasons that British sports cars are renowned the world over and many Formula 1 teams still have their engineering bases in the UK, considered to be the best in the World. We also have a vibrant grassroots motorsport community, producing world class F1 and rally drivers. Stifling this unique historical creativity will affect our country's economy, the right of citizens to their pastimes and our ability to compete in the world of motorsport.
Therefore I urge you to strongly oppose this legislation in any way possible.
Yours sincerely.
[sign here]
I have sent one to my local MEPs