Important EU Consultation Re Insurances

[chunder]

I would agree with Peter here.

People have enough experience with the EU to perhaps be very aware of what could happen here.

Plus insurance groups will be lobbying (ie backhanding) hard for this as they stand to make billions from it.

That kind of power is very hard to prevent.

So I can fully understand why even though this is nowhere near law yet, people like Chris and the MIA are up front and clear, and a little over reactionary about it.

As, in the UK particularly, this would have potentially devastating impact.

BUT, it is perhaps, long term a very minor thing that leaving the EU could benefit us from. The EU as a whole do not have a clear motorsport industry worth billions a year as we do, so our government can legitimately fight this corner.

The only problem is, our relationship with them is very sour, and thus is could be seen by those in power as a punishment for us leaving.

All hypothetical and very cynical of me, but you get the drift eh!

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

This initiative is attempting to put some logic into what is obviously a case of "straight bananas".

Straight bananas and the other myths invented by Boris Johnson in the newspaper column he wrote (or still writes - I can't be bothered to check all the jobs he does to maintain his considerable income) for a "laugh".

Such consultations cover a huge variety of topics and they have to start with something - which is usually suggested by someone with limited knowledge of all the aspects, hence there are always components that make no sense and are dropped.

Of course if you are in the country that usually goes far beyond what the others do when implementing such directives and then blames the EU for it you might have reason to worry - but the presence of UK ministers at historic car events is possibly more to do with eyeing up the potential benefit to their coffers of things like capital gains on old cars.

[Peter Mallett]

The straight bananas was in fact my poor attempt at humour.

Peter, you appear to have ignored the thrust of my point which is that this is as a result of an ECJ ruling. That is the issue. Once ruled upon the EU won't be able to ignore it until or unless there are compelling reasons. One of which is loss of employment. And contrary to Chunder's point there are a lot of motorsport companies in Mainland Europe so they will have an interest too. Not to mention the journalists who rely on the sport for thier livelihood. Don't forget this will affect E Racing too, not just the traditionally powered racing.

And notwithstanding the traditional approach to directives taken by some countries, if the ruling is applied the FIA, which last time I looked was definitely not a country, will necessarily have to follow it and apply it to circuits in Europe.

Thus I've put the notice here for those who may feel they need to make a point. I have no interest in the politics of Brexit or anything else, in connection with this. Just to make sure that the sport Europewide remains open to as many folks as it can.

[midgetman]

Not to mention the law of unintended consequences. Unintended? Maybe intended.

Mobility scooters
Powered wheelchairs
Golf carts
Your powered lawn mower

If, as Chris asserts, the insurance industry are unwilling to pick up the tab, it will be ILLEGAL to use one. How will this be policed? Powered Vehicle Enforcement Officers no doubt, empowered to walk into your private property at any time to check you are not cutting your grass without insurance. Compulsory confiscation of Stephen Hawking's wheelchair.

I foresee a whole new generation of prod nose officials rooting round in barns and outbuildings looking for evidence of illicit powered machinery. "Why have you got a can of unleaded, Herr Morley? Your papers please!"

(I am joking - I hope!)

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[PeterMorley]

The whole straight banana thing was always a poor attempt at humour, just amazing how many people fell for it!

It might be the result of an ECJ ruling but it had nothing to do with motorsport.
Motorsport has been thrown into the discussion along with anything else that someone thought might fall in the same field.

A rather wider issue than that of motorsport is lawnmowers, which would also be affected by such a directive (I'm sure a BoJo type will happily raise that to justify their cause).

Given the size of the motorsport and lawnmowing fraternities and the fact that the EU does not strive to increase unemployment such issues will fall by the wayside along the way.

France and Germany in particular have sizeable motorsport industries and they know how to deal with such issues and will prevent any stupidity.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by midgetman

I foresee a whole new generation of prod nose officials rooting round in barns and outbuildings looking for evidence of illicit powered machinery. "Why have you got a can of unleaded, Herr Morley? Your papers please!"

(I am joking - I hope!)

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

This crossed over with my reply, it's good to see that someone else has found the wider reaching aspects.

As for the papers joke, that's a major reason people here appreciate the EU, they were fed up with their neighbours taking over on a regular basis...

Don't know about the unleaded but I wonder what they would make of the huge stash of methanol and ever diminishing stock of leaded....
Oh and carbon tetrachloride...

[chunder]

Oh dear, as usual nit picking thrives on here with a few people.

I am not stupid Mr Mallett, I obviously realise Europe is a very big place and companies there will be affected by this aswell. My point was that there is a large concentration of companies in the UK, both very large and very small, and probably a bigger share of GDP than in any other European country, so the government might have more of a vested interest in this type of law.

Regarding other points, I don't think this really has a cat in hells chance of being law, some of it will become law clearly, but the point is, it could easily impact a lot of other areas.

Law is often made by a lawyer setting a precedent, if this allows that precedent to be easier to set...

That is the point and why I support the petition in full.

[MGDavid]

For any that wish to become a little better informed before commenting, read some of the background:
http://www.bipar.eu/en/page/motor-in...-ecj-vnuk-case
is a reasonable summary, google 'ECJ Vnuk case' for lots more.

The point is that this is not new; the ECJ ruling was over 3 years ago, various administrations and bodies both public and private have been trying for most of that time to get reasonable exemptions for motorsport or mobility scooters or lawnmowers etc etc and signally failed as the EU doesn't appear to listen to common sense. (Hence Brexit some may say...)

The MIA have raised this urgent request as time is fast running out to get changes incorporated before it becomes law.

[one-two]

That is a commendably clear link - thank you

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by chunder

Oh dear, as usual nit picking thrives on here with a few people.

I am not stupid Mr Mallett, I obviously realise Europe is a very big place and companies there will be affected by this aswell. My point was that there is a large concentration of companies in the UK, both very large and very small, and probably a bigger share of GDP than in any other European country, so the government might have more of a vested interest in this type of law.

Regarding other points, I don't think this really has a cat in hells chance of being law, some of it will become law clearly, but the point is, it could easily impact a lot of other areas.

Law is often made by a lawyer setting a precedent, if this allows that precedent to be easier to set...

That is the point and why I support the petition in full.

Sorry wasn't nit picking. But the subject of precedent is quite interesting because according to the rules of the ECJ they don't set precedents and don't use them in any of their cases. Although to read their judgments you'd think otherwise.

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

France and Germany in particular have sizeable motorsport industries and they know how to deal with such issues and will prevent any stupidity.

Peter, I just hope you're right but not sure.

[AdrianM]

All member states already have (and do use) the ability to exclude any group of vehicles they like from any such directive.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by AdrianM

All member states already have (and do use) the ability to exclude any group of vehicles they like from any such directive.

Could you quote a reliable or definitive source for that statement please?

[Bob_Black]

Originally Posted by chunder

The EU as a whole do not have a clear motorsport industry worth billions a year as we do, so our government can legitimately fight this corner.

...Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes, Oreca, the biggest chassis constructor globally Dallara, the innumerate small constructors and teams right the way down to club level, etc. etc. Fair bit over the 20 mile hop.

All buying a hell of lot of stuff from the UK.

[chunder]

But they are not Mclaren, Ginetta, Red Bull, Williams, Renault, Cosworth and plenty of others linked to F1.

My point is not that there are not big firms in europe, just that there is a concentration on them in the UK and they contribute more probably to our GDP than in any other country and probably employ a higher percentage of the population than the others to in countries with similar populations