As we edge ever closer to the (currently timetabled 20th Nov) full EU Parliamentary vote on Type Approval, within which are the sections on anti-tampering, MAG Central has written to all MEPs explaining why they should attend, but vote against, the Regulation.
Just to recap, most of the Type Approval Regulation is consolidating existing legislation, which we are not and never have been, in a position to address. There are also sections of the Regulation we welcome, such as the removal of the 100bhp ban that France favoured, now that the Commission acknowledges there is absolutely no link between power and accidents.
The reason our letter asks them to vote against the proposal, is because at this late stage our options were limited, but one we could use, was to point out that the Regulation has been drafted illegally and the MEPs should not be willing to be complicit in law breaking.
As evidence for anti-tampering has not been produced, article 18 of the regulation is in contravention of the Treaty of the European Union article 5 para 4 which covers proportionality. Laws can only be passed if they are proportional to the 'problem' they are trying to fix. If there is no problem, there should be no law.
Due legislative process has not been followed.
On issues of procedure, this regulation has problems too. The text is due to be voted on on the 20th November and yet the final text is not in the public domain. Even MEPs haven't seen it yet, which means they haven't had time to read it. Nor have their office staff. Are they really in a position to vote on something that they haven't seen? They text should be public for at least 4 weeks. There's only a fortnight to go.
Many of you have raised petitions to the Euro parliament and this is adding weight everyday, to the MEP realisation that the Ombudsman has acknowledged this shouldn't be going ahead without some evidence and that the EU Commission does have a case to answer.
Even the questions asked in the EU Parliament by concerned MEPs, haven't been answered.
The UK government can't find any evidence to justify anti-tampering either.
No-one has been able to say exactly how the Delegated Acts (those detail parts of the regulation that have not yet been fully written by the bureaucrats) will be scrutinised by Parliament after the vote and the thing has become law.
If you do want to keep up the fight, please just write to your MEPs (and remember you have more than one - see www.ridersarevoters.org) and refer to the letter they have received from MAG central office dated 6th November, asking that they address the questions it raises.
And finally, it is with huge regret that I must inform you of the passing of Fergus O'Connell a huge figure within MAG, in more ways than one.
Most recently Ferg held the position of Local rep in NE Lincs, but he may be more well known for his many years as National Clubs Officer (though he volunteered for many positions) and of course for his regular column in the ROAD magazine. Ferg will be greatly missed by thousands.