I don't, I only have extracts from those present, but be assured there are no enforceable EU reasons why this stance could be opposed..
I don't doubt you know a million times more than me about pedelecs, but on EU law, there are plenty of reasons why the UK stances are very vulnerable to challenge
The Cassis de Dijon rule which mandates that goods held safe in one member state must be accepted by all, requires that we accept s-pedelecs. That any restriction on use of s-pedelecs with significantly more onerous safety requirements, is a measure having equivalent effect to a quantititative restriction on the movement of goods (an MEQR), which must be justified under one of the mandatory requirements (or Art 36 TFEU). The Italian Trailers case which mandates that all restrictions on movement of goods are a breach of the treaties, which must be justified on compelling grounds of public safety, subject to proportionality rules, including the "least restrictive option" doctrine. Our "moped SVA" regime for anything about 15mph is manifestly not proportionate, in terms of being the least restrictive option to attain a permissible aim (protecting public safety), nor do the burdensome nature of our SVA procedures for s-pedelecs and equivalent bikes (given Germany's s-pedelec approval) fall within the Charter Article 41 requirements on fair administration (which I believe encompasses the "fair procedure" rules developed by the ECJ) - thus also breaching TFEU Art 30 with no proportionality justification.
"member states do have entitlements to add variations in a number of areas" - however these and the remaining restrictions must meet the proportionality tests established by EU law on the free movement of goods, and are subject to challenge on these grounds.
"Since November 2003 we have lived with our pedelecs in a legislative black hole since we have not yet adopted EU pedelec law" - any EU lawyer will tell you that as soon as a directive (instruction to implement within a set period) is published, no member state can take action which runs in a contrary direction. Otherwise the doctrine of state liability will apply - and be enforceable immediately in a British local court by affected citizens/companies.
"In any case, a court ruling might have little effect in Britain" - I'm afraid that's not correct. Every single court in Britain has full power to adjudicate on the full plethora of EU law jurisprudence, even setting aside primary Parliamentary legislation if needs be - all because of s 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972.
" where we now have passed laws known to be illegal under both UK and EU law" - all member states play this game but the nature of the Direct Effect doctrine is that you can have all these statutes set aside - in your local county court. However I'm not sure what you mean about us "pass[ing] laws known to be illegal under ... UK law" - if you mean secondary legislation running counter to primary, that's pretty normal, a judge will overturn. As for being "illegal under... EU law", as I said, that's normal, it goes to the local court, gets overturned, or gets referred up to the ECJ for an opinion.
"and where a Prime Minister openly states he will ignore EU court rulings in future." - where has he said this? In any case it's not his decision, because he's accountable to Parliament which passed the ECA 1972 (which gives all EU law direct applicability in the UK) and Parliament has no intention of repealing that statute. So until Parliament expressly repeals that statute, the courts can and will ignore everything the mere head of the executive says, because the courts obey Parliament, not the mere executive.
