Is there anybody out there who would be prepared to write a Guest Blog for this site which made the case that pulling out of the EU would be good for wildlife, the countryside and the environment (or any one of them)?
Anyone?
I’d like to hear from you. But perhaps you simply don’t exist…
[registration_form]
theoretically it could be. for instance all farm subsidies could then be 100% environmentally based. and environmental legislation could be strengthened and actually given some bite.
but equally the tooth fairy and santa clause could be sighted doing a rhumba down oxford street.
reality would be utter devastation of our natural environment. this is after all the reason ukip want to take us out of the EU in order to be able to destroy all of the current protections
Here’s a stab at one line of argument; only by leaving the EU can we keep English population growth, and hence the demand for housing and services, down to a sustainable level in terms of land, energy, and water. (I say England as it’s largely an English issue, the other parts of the UK don’t have the pressure of population growth due to net immigration). And getting population growth down to a sustainable level is a pre-requisite for everything else we want. Otherwise we need to build 100,000 new houses plus all the roads, power stations, and other infrastructure a year indefinitely. That’s a Bristol now to catch up, then a Maidstone or Bedford each year for the foreseeable future, and they’ll all be southeast of the Tees Exe line.
Anyone care to address this point ? I note that last time I posted it here, there were several postings attacking UKIP but none addressing this issue.
Just to be clear, I’am in no way a UKIP supporter. Their political agenda appalls me. In fact one added benefit of leaving the EU that crosses my mind is that outside the EU the entire populist rationale for UKIP disappears and only their core nastiness remains – bit like the dim white dwarf left after a supernova.
But away from this line of argument, it’s far too high risk a strategy for me. I put these arguments forward only in the hope that someone can come up with a really good counter argument. But no-one has yet… which worries me.
Right now I can’t see any way that this plays out that leads to a good result.
Bill, I agree with you. I joined the Green Party in 1975. At that time they had a policy to get England’s population down to 30 million and leave the EEC as it was then. I now see they are the anti UKIP party and support immigration. No one wants to talk anymore about the population issue but as you indicate, it’s the key driver to stop economic growth and the environmental destruction that entails. The only reason I would support staying in the EU is the Environmental regulation aspect. Neither Labour Conservatives or UKIP or SNP would do any better and would probably do a lot worse.
Well said all three above. Yes, in theory there would be benefits for the environment from leaving the EU, especially in getting rid of the CAP monstrosity, but in practice the indigenous vested interests here in England would scupper any attempts at running things better. Agribusiness, private equity and landed Chums will make sure they keep extorting vast subsidies out of the taxpayer for wrecking ecosystems, come what may.
Population and net immigration would remain high because the CBI and Business interests want to keep it high so as to keep wages and conditions down and so they can keep making huge profits from building ever more housing, industry, roads, retail, services and so on.
I look forward to reading Richard Wayre’s effort to show different. Good luck Richard!
Another example of very different approaches to environmental issues between UK and others in Europe, has turned up recently:
AJ Stein’s blog reports that [after many years of resistance in some EU nations] “GM crops could be speedily brought to the UK market after MEPs voted to allow countries to choose whether to grow the crops… The new EU law, which comes into force this spring, will allow states to cultivate GM crops that have already been approved by the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa).
According to… the UK’s head of GM policy and regulation… “new applications should be approved much more quickly than has been the case until now”… The Liberal Democrat… welcomed the new rules… “We are keeping strict safeguards in place but the decision on whether or not to grow approved genetically modified crops is being returned to national governments… This will give us a stronger legal framework in which countries, farmers and scientists can work” … The Labour party also views biotechnology as a way to strengthen the UK’s food chain and reduce environmental damage…”
http://ajstein.tumblr.com/post/108277375060/gm-crops-to-be-fast-tracked-in-uk-following-eu
The UK agribusiness industry will doubtless have been in the forefront of pushing for the latest legislation.
The powerful EU nation of Germany, on the other hand, continues to hold out – rightly or wrongly, depending on your view of GM –
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/agriculture-food/german-environment-ministry-seeks-unconditional-gmo-ban-311238
EU legislation on the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment was developed in response to the demonstrable failure of Member States to take effective action when left to their own devices, and – in relation to nature in particular) the need to protect what little of the best was left. Thanks to EU environmental legislation the most special places are still special (for wildlife and for people – Birds and Habitats Directives), you can swim in the sea without puking up for a week afterwards (Bathing Waters Directive), go for a paddle in your local river without fear of bumping into the poo you flushed that morning (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) and the ‘Dirty Old Man of Europe’ is dirty no more (or at least a lot less dirty). If there are arguments to the contrary then I too would like to hear them….
When would you want a submission, Mark? I rather fancy a crack at that but, as a final year undergrad I have a rather hectic schedule of looming deadlines. If i wrote something I’d want to research it.
Richard – to suit you (email me at [email protected] to discuss)
Try Owen Paterson! You could at the same time ask him for a brief summary of the precautionary principle.