It’s human nature to believe the things we are told by our peers, as we grow up, but there comes a point in our lives when we stop believing everything we are told. Take for example some of the replies from MEP’s, MP’s and other parties over the “Armageddon” article.

Some of the forums have run extensive threads and inevitably most have followed predictable lines of denial, anger, frustration and disbelief. Some of you have been inquisitive enough to write to those in power and express your concerns. But we question some of those replies as being misleading, diverting and downright wrong.

One of the most common themes running through replies is that the UK government will have a say in the process and ultimately whatever the EU decided is irrelevant until the UK parliament agrees upon it.

The below example was kindly posted to another forum and in the public domain.

http://retrorides.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=135328&page=18

Thank you for your email about the European Commission’s proposal for an EU Roadworthiness Testing Directive, which was published in July 2012. Many of my correspondents, like you, have been concerned about the alarmist comments on this proposal that have appeared on some car enthusiasts web sites. We want to reassure you that it will certainly not be rushed into approval in its present form, to the detriment of owners and users of historic, modified and low volume specialist vehicles.

On the contrary, this proposal is very far from being agreed, despite the fact that it has already been subject to extensive consultation. It will go through a full Co-Decision procedure involving the European Parliament and all the EU Member Governments. The proposed content will certainly be modified extensively. It has many flaws and it is not at all clear that there will be a majority of Member States in favour of any EU intervention in this policy area. The UK has yet to take a position on it.

Within the European Parliament, review of the dossier is being led by the Transport Committee, and 3 other Committees will have key roles. A large number of UK MEPs will be examining the dossier and proposing amendments. No work has yet started in Parliament. We would not expect agreement before the end of 2013. You will be able to follow its progress through the web site of the European Parliament and also see a live web cast of all the discussions.

The attached file shows the current procedure that will be followed, with links to the key proposal documents. The full timetable and the appointment of the key MEPs on the file (rapporteurs) will be decided in September. It is likely that there will be a public hearing at which the case for amendments can be made.

Parliaments in Member States will also be able to give their opinions, and the proposal will already have been sent to the Westminster Parliament for a response.

The UK Government is also very deeply involved through the Department of Transport. They will have representatives in all the negotiations with the European Commission. It is already consulting stakeholders, and we attach their request for views from interested parties for your interest.

Conservative MEPs will take great care to ensure that sympathetic treatment for historic and modified vehicles will be encompassed in any final legislation. For several years we have been working with the Federation of British Historical Vehicles Clubs, and their European Federation, to respond to consultations that the EU has been having on this proposal. The attached note from the FBHVC web site shows what has been going on. In the European Parliament we have a well supported, all party and cross country Historic Vehicles Group that meets regularly to co-ordinate activities. We are very much aware of the economic importance of the historic vehicle movement.

It will be important for the historic vehicle movement, the specialist niche vehicle and kit car producers across Europe to examine the details and make a considered case to amend the flaws in this proposal. We are confident that MEPs will be very receptive to suggested changes form experts in this area.

Your sincerely

Ashley Fox MEP

Okay, the key issue is in the first sentence, where Ashley Fox thanks you for the email about the directive, she makes the mistake in thinking this is a directive when it is clearly titled a regulation. Many other letters also assume the proposal is a directive and the message given out by Ashley and others follows from this assumption, is that the UK government will have an opportunity to mould it at a local level.

Take for example the FBHVC press release on EU Roadworthiness testing, that also attempts an address of the same issue.

http://fbhvc.co.uk/2012/08/23/eu-roadworthiness-testing/

When the European Parliament Historic Vehicle Group (EPHVG) met in May, Szabolcs Schmidt the head of the EC Road Safety Unit, mentioned that proposals for revisions to the Roadworthiness Testing Directive, following a 2010 consultation, were expected ‘in the summer’. In July, the European Commission published the detail which turned out to be a proposal to replace the current Roadworthiness Testing Directive (2009/40/EC) with a completely new Directive.

The draft of the new Directive has implications for all motorists, not just historic vehicle owners. Amongst other things, the draft includes requirements to test all trailers (which in turn implies a registration system) and requires tests to make reference to a vehicle’s original ‘technical characteristics’. The meaning of this expression is not defined. National governments are granted the right to make their own testing arrangements for ‘vehicles of historic interest’. A vehicle of historic interest is then defined as one that
» • Was manufactured more than 30 years ago
» • Is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce the historic components of the vehicle
» • Has not sustained any change in the technical characteristics of its main components such as engine, brakes, steering or suspension; and
» • Has not been changed in its appearance.

FBHVC considers this definition to be unworkable and completely unacceptable. FBHVC also rejects the suggestion that Roadworthiness Testing should relate to a vehicle’s ‘technical characteristics’, whatever the age of the vehicle. Modifications, alterations and improvements are all part of the history of motor vehicles and the older the vehicle, the more likely it is that it will have been altered at some stage. At present the basic tenet of a UK MoT test is that it is one of mechanical fitness. There is no database of original specifications for UK vehicles, so testing to original ‘technical characteristics’ is simply pie-in-the-sky.

Earlier this month, the Department for Transport asked stakeholders for comment on the proposals. FBHVC will be responding formally to this request when further analysis of the detailed proposals has been completed. FBHVC will be discussing the implications of the proposal with the international organisation, FIVA, and through them with the EPHVG group as well as with the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group in the UK.

It should be remembered that this is still just a proposal. It has to have approval by each EU member country before it is adopted. Some media commentary on this topic has tended towards the ‘we’re doomed’ end of the scale. It is certainly a serious issue and FBHVC is treating it accordingly.

The FBHVC also take the assumption that this is a Directive and point out “it has to have approval by each EU member country before it is adopted” 100% correct if it’s a Directive. But this is not how the EU works when it comes to Regulations.

ACE wonder why so many people have missed this important change in the type of proposal, when the title of the paper is very clear?

That clearly states it’s a Regulation that will replace an older Directive!

So what’s a Regulation when it’s at home?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)

A regulation is a legislative act of the European Union that becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously. Regulations can be distinguished from directives which, at least in principle, need to be transposed into national law.

Legal effect

Regulations are in some sense equivalent to “Acts of Parliament”, in the sense that what they say is law and they do not need to be mediated into national law by means of implementing measures. As such, regulations constitute one of the most powerful forms of European Union law and a great deal of care is required in their drafting and formulation.

When a regulation comes into force, it overrides all national laws dealing with the same subject matter and subsequent national legislation must be consistent with and made in the light of the regulation. While member states are prohibited from obscuring the direct effect of regulations, it is common practice to pass legislation dealing with consequential matters arising from the coming into force of a regulation.

Well that seems plain and simple, the UK doesn’t have a direct say at all!

But hold on a minute Ashley Fox told us all:

It will go through a full Co-Decision procedure involving the European Parliament and all the EU Member Governments.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0080a6d3d8/Ordinary-legislative-procedure.html

The co-decision procedure was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty on European Union (1992), and extended and made more effective by the Amsterdam Treaty (1999). With the Lisbon Treaty that took effect on 1 December 2009, the renamed ordinary legislative procedure became the main legislative procedure of the EU´s decision-making system.

It is nothing to do with shared decision making between UK and EU (as I feel it hints at) it’s the methodology used where the two EU chambers agree upon things, not the UK and EU (as implied in Ashley Fox’s letter), this is misleading, at best.

It’s fundamental to the way in which the EU will approach this proposal and change the law with so little understanding of the unique culture and heritage of the UK scene.

This is why ACE has been so critical of the process and urged you to write to the MEP’s.