I will probably be voting to remain in the EU – although I am giving it quite a lot of thought. It’s not completely cut and dried.
In the car on the way to Cheltenham one day last week (yes, thanks for asking – I had a great time and made money overall) the discussion was divided between who would win the Champion Chase and whether we should Remain or Leave. And to be fair, it all depends on what future ‘UKlight’ governments (because Scotland might be off if we vote to leave) would do with all that ‘sovereignty’ that we had regained.
The debate is a funny one. On the environment, most of the arguments to Remain are based on the EU’s past achievements not on its current activities and not on the future. It’s not ‘What has the EU ever done for us?’ that is the question, but the balance of gains and losses between a future in or out of the EU. And it’s a bit difficult to know what might happen under either scenario. After all, the Scots have done quite a few good things when largely unshackled as far as the environment is concerned, from the UK. But the prospect of the Tory right dismantling decades of environmental legislation in England is so real over the next few years if we vote Leave that I am likely to be scared by that into voting Remain.
I am very pleased to see some wildlife NGOs speaking out on this issue and getting into some trouble for doing so. John Sauven of Greenpeace puts it very well here, and the Telegraph less well here.
Here is what the Wildlife Trusts say ‘Our research and evidence indicates that the safest outcome for wildlife and the environment would be for the UK to stay in the EU.’
And FoE say ‘While far from perfect, EU membership has greatly benefited the UK’s nature and the environment.’.
Martin Harper’s RSPB blog has some interesting blogs on the subject, and it looks like there will be more to come over the weeks, ‘An environmental perspective on the forthcoming referendum on the UK membership of the European Union’, ‘Separating fact from fiction in the run up to the referendum on the UK membership of the European Union‘, ‘EU Referendum: don’t be silly #1‘, ‘The RSPB’s approach to the EU Referendum‘.
A major report on the subject was published by IEEP (guess what the first ‘E’ stands for?) last week.
Almost all of my friends say they will vote Remain – so I probably will too. But there is that little (are you sure? Ed) bit of me that would love to see what the alternative future would look like even if it were a mess, and because I find it more attractive to rebel than conform.
[registration_form]
One of the arguments put forward by some in the Leave campaign is that the EU is in the process of negotiating the TTIP deal with the US and that deal looks likely to empower multi-national corporations to challenge and overrule any environmental or social laws that they consider impede their ability to trade successfully. I too am fearful of what TTIP will mean for these environmental protections when it comes into force but I very much doubt that things will be different under a UK government outside the EU. Our own government is one of the most enthusiastic free trade, market economy proponents in the current EU and I think it is most unlikely that on leaving the EU they would negotiate a different deal with the US that retained better protection of our environmental legislation from the depredations of corporate lawyers. Even if they did seek to do so, it has to be doubted that the US would be inclined to embark on a whole new set of negotiations just for us; they would most likely push us into going along with the terms of the EU-US deal and never mind our fresh new sovereignty.
Our current government is right up there with Scott Walker and Rick Snyder in the US as horrendous radical free marketeers (you may recognise those names from the news when it touches on things like corruption, state water poisoning, voter suppression, etc) of the highest order. In point of fact our current government are refusing to use the exemption process to protect native industry and services for which TTIP provides, and that includes deliberately including the sad and tattered remnants of the NHS (according to the World Health Organisation the UK no longer qualifies as having a nationally supported health service thanks to Govt.’s recent “reforms”) in the free trade sections of the TTIP while France and Germany are all making good use of those exemptions.
Makes you wish we’d had a revolution or two, really. I volunteer to sit on the guillotine steps to cackle and knit if we do.
Please also see
http://www.cieem.net/news/318/cieem-survey-shows-overwhelming-support-for-staying-in-the-eu
Sorry to be a tad -ve Lisa but inevitable CIEEM folk would wish to say in Europe. If Cons. continue to discard the ‘green cr*p’ as they are doing and there was Brexit there would be little use for their members as consultants to ‘comply’ with EU Birds & Habitats Directives? Self preservation to some degree?
Above is not really material to the in / out debate but an illustration of interest group perspective.
Of which some farmers in and some out, so a split interest group …. such diversity?
Where politicians peddle a particular view vociferously what are the chances they have some vested interest, and sadly one unlikely to be in the best public interest?
What we must continue to seek is robust evidence of good and bad practice from reliable sources then we can try our best to make informed decisions.
Only about 60% of CIEEM members are consultants. The rest are from the public/NGO sector.
Most people will vote, at least partly, on the basis of self-interest – not necessarily entirely, but it must be an influence; is that automatically wrong? There was a similar comment on Linked In recently from a non-CIEEM consultant accusing CIEEM members of self-interest but then going on to say that his clients say they would be better off out of the EU. So his choice to vote leave is not self interest then?
Yes of course I am concerned about my livelihood, but in common with the majority of my colleagues, I am equally if not more concerned about the impact on the environment of leaving the EU. With few exceptions, most of us work in this field because we care about it, not because we think we will get rich on it. Personally, I have usually seen a financial benefit under a Tory government but I would never, ever vote for one. So, please, do not presume that self-preservation is the only motive here.
I’m torn. I want to stay in, but a vote to stay in is a vote to support Cameron’s dodgy deal. I don’t know, if the polls are close near the day I shall vote IN because the EU (even a weakened one by the dodgy deal) still provides a check on vile and avaricious Duncan-Smithers, but if Stay has a comfortable lead then I’ll spoil my ballot by writing on it that I want integration and social charter implementation before giving my support.
On wildlife issues, the EU is a mixed bag. Good for birds and good for mammals, but it has been very weak on pollinator protection, nice idea but the follow through has been weak.
‘Good for birds’ ?????
Happy anniversary to all of you.
March marks the 3rd anniversary of the idiots at the EU licensing Diclofenac for use in Spain and Italy.
Yes they know the carnage its use caused in Asia. Yes they know that their own scientists advised against its use. Yes they know that there is a vulture friendly alternative. Do they care? NO.
Good for birds? Well if you don’t live on our grouse moors, or use Malta as a flyway, or Italy or Cyprus or…….
Good for birds? Well if you don’t need to rely on plentiful stocks of fish in the seas.
Our politicians are perfectly capable of screwing things up themselves, they don’t need the EUs help.
And if we ever got to the stage of the great British public being aware of what is going on and even caring a jot, at least we can vote out one set of idiots to put the other fools in charge. Can’t do that in Europe.
Good for birds? Happy anniversary to you all from your European vultures.
The EU mechanisms did result in a pan European partial ban in Neonicotinoids that is helping bees and other pollinators; against the wishes of the UK Government.
At an EU level much of the representation for invertebrates comes from organisations like Buglife and Butterfly Conservation Europe who have strong UK roots, this NGO representation would be likely to reduce if the UK left the EU.
The EU Parliament has recently passed a motion asking the EC to develop a new pollinator initiative, this was step was promoted by a British MEP. We would hope that the new EU pollinator conservation initiative would learn from our experience of national Pollinator Strategies in the UK and would be open to further influence from British MEPs and NGOs.
Leaving the EU will leave this country isolated and irrelevant, back to the little island on the fringes of the time after France threw England off its territories. It will be an economic, environmental and security disaster – this is exactly the wrong time to be breaking ranks, as new threats to peace and stability are popping up all over the place. The French would probably say this is absolutely typical of ‘perfidious Albion’. I think the CBI estimate of £100 billion decline in the economy and 970,000 job losses is probably conservative, whilst a forestry colleague, I think rightly, estimated an exchange rate of £1 to 1 Euro out, £1 to 1.35-1.45 in. So we could vote to end up pretty much where the Euro is after all. And if the logic isn’t proof, emotionally just look at the people supporting Brexit – Boris Johnson, who is interested in just one thing, Boris Johnson – Michael Gove, Owen ‘green crap’ Paterson and so it goes on. Get real and don’t relegate Britain (actually England, because Scotland will stay in the EU, just leave England) to histories sidelines.
Exactly, Roderick Leslie. The Brexit case is put in very narrow terms of profit and loss for the UK – Napoleon’s ‘Nation of Shopkeepers’ – with no regard to the real need for united European action on the bigger issues facing us all. Criticism of the current workings of the EU is pretty hollow coming from a country which has never made a constructive contribution, whose media (unlike other European media) ignores the European parliament and whose voters choose to be represented there by obstructive UKIP MEPs. The only attempt at a principled case for Brexit is the ‘sovereignty’ argument which is just one manifestation (Trident being another) of the UK’s inability to recognise its decline and the consequent need to pool sovereignty with others. One of the underlying reasons for Scottish support for the EU is that Scots have seen the Union with England as the pooling of sovereignty between two countries – a view which we are aware has always been lost on England – and the EU is no different.
In Environmental terms the only question is whether you believe environmental issues cross borders and need common action. There is no ‘Little England’ there.
The EU seems to think more long-term. They apply a ban on neonicitinoids but good old Defra succumbs to pressure from the NFU for derogation on very dubious grounds.
My big gripe is the waste of money maintaining two parliamentary homes but I guess Strasbourg looks safer today than Brussels.
I think the EU’s idea of migrating its parliament between Strasbourg and Brussels is a good one. I think the UK would be a lot less internally riven if the UK government sat in more than one place. Half of the time in London and then maybe in Manchester, or Newcastle or even Liverpool the rest of the time (and doing guest sittings in the devolved parliaments too). It would force the media and a lot of the hangers on to break out from the Westminster bubble which is what has really damaged this country. It would make them, in the words of every rambling association commercials ever, Get Out and See The Country!
Glad you enjoyed Cheltenham Mark.
Never mind about those 7 horses that died or were euthanised eh? http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/
It’s your enjoyment that matters.
Gordon – thank you for your comment.
The writing is on the wall and it looks to me as if the EU is going down the plug hole. Past environmental gains are under threat from the unaccountable EU commission which has been captured by globalist corporate interests. Look at their actions in Greece, Ukraine, Turkey and Syria. I too have concerns about what the tories will do with unfettered control but we can boot them out. The sooner we descend into irrelevance the better it will be for much of humanity and the natural world. We can do Europe a favour by voting Brexit and speeding the unravelling. Perhaps then we can start to build new arrangements focused on what we Europeans actually want.