I asked my MP, a leading member of the Vote Leave group, to point me in the direction of a well-argued environmental case for voting for exit from the EU. Mr Pursglove was kind enough to point me in the direction of the Briefing Room on the Vote Leave website.
Is that it? Really?
In that case, I’ll be staying, thank you.
[registration_form]
Is there an ‘environment’ section buried in there somewhere?
Hmm. Curious. I looked as well. I don’t think the environment is even on their radar. Maybe it’s discussed under some entry on ” red tape”.
I haven’t made my mind up on Brexit yet and the Environment will feature heavily in my decision, however in the interests of balance I think there are features of the EU that may have been detrimental to the UK’s environment and should be considered in any debate.
Firstly, I look at the CAP and ask myself the question ‘how much have EU subsidies driven the intensification of agriculture to the detriment of large parts of the lowlands and less, but probably more dramatically, the uplands?’ Subsidies appear to have helped incentivise hedgerows to vanish, 90% of upland meadows to disappear, blander Eco-systems to evolve through over-grazing, larger fields, etc. leading to significant reductions in once common species. Could Brexit lead to a large-scale reduction in subsidies, a mini-collapse in farming, agricultural land prices and present an opportunity for an NGO land grab! EU subsidies also helps support grouse moor owners…
Secondly, if there is a link between open borders and increased population (?), then what pressure has this exerted upon our environment in terms of additional housing, transport network etc? Would Brexit reduce population pressure on the UK Environment?
Also, as a final thought (and I accept this is conjecture) if Britain leaves Europe two things are arguably likely to happen, both of which will lead to an anasailable Tory position; Scottish independence and the dissapearence of UKIP. On the face of it this would be catastrophic for the environment, however this could lead to a situation where proportional representation is introduced; which could mean a much louder voice for the greens…….we live in hope!
Some good points there Martyn.
Our natural heritage has been massively eroded under the present set up, so why do we think that staying in Europe will improve the situation?
On the other hand it could be that independence leads to an even worse situation for our wildlife.
I don’t know the answer, and that is why I haven’t decided which way to vote.
I need more facts.
I know for sure that if farming carries on in the way it is currently developing then our nature will suffer more than ever.
Why is there the perception that environmental legislation will change if we leave the EU! All existing EU legislation enacted under national statutory legislation is not likely to be repealed. There are a number of examples of non-EU dependencies including those associated with Britain not members but who have adopted some of EU environmental legislation.
Who was it keen on cutting the gold plated green c**p? Environment red tape hindered business so would be reduced or abolished. With that kind of policy statement one might be forgiven for having doubts or concerns?
I’m still waiting for the mass of promised ‘facts’ to base an assessment on. I’ve lost faith (not that I had much in the first place) in the bunch of self serving spin merchants pretending to put the public (& environment which we all share) before profit.
Sadly there is little being offered which recognises the real true value of the natural environment, and how many voters will place it top of their agenda? How many will place it in their top three considerations, top ten even? Materialistic consumers need jobs, cheap food, cheap holidays etc.
Five weeks still of woeful and weary war of words, true colours will out and who will collect the spoils secured by the spin merchants?
I heard a Tory MP say exactly that a few days ago…. then in the next breath mutter “but we will be better off due to the reduced red tape and better regulation”….
The clear indication is the intention to get out of the EU and then drop the controls and standards. Being part of a larger club makes our regulation more stable and when it comes to the environment and the economy stability is key.
Did anyone else notice Cameron refer to Kerry McCarthy (Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) as the ‘Shadow Farming Minister’ after the Queen’s speech? It shows that for the Tories, the environment = anything the NFU says it is.
In answer to your question re open borders, there is no link. Also if regarding European movement – it is only movement within Europe and not increasing the population of Europe. Finally, almost all habitat damage, to wetlands, to forests, to fisheries and pasture was done well before EU membership.
Mark,
My main reason for voting BREXIT would be to see the end of the UKs CAP subsidies for rich land owners bent on destroying wildlife. However,after seeing this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36312042 and second guessing that the Torres will want to actually increase the payments to these scroungers, I’m leaning towards STAY. Despite the fact that knowing that David Cameron and the rest of those parasites want to stay that can only be bad for the rest of us. Its between a rock and a hard place I believe.
Just remembered… it was Bernard Jenkin MP.
If you care at all about the environment, and are toying with Brexit, consider the following:
1. The greatest period of loss of biodiversity in groups such as birds, or pollinators, occurred before we entered the (then) EEC. In the case of pollinators, there’s even some evidence that populations may have stabilised in the last 10 years.
2. Our strongest habitat protection (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) come from the EU.
3. In the Venn diagram of ‘Brexit campaigner’ and ‘climate change sceptic’ there is, with a few honorable exceptions, almost complete overlap. UKIP reject science as party policy.
4. Do you really imagine that the likes of Nigel Lawson, Nigel Farage and Owen Patterson want Brexit to strengthen environmental protection?
CAP drives me crazy too, but the environmental case for staying in the EU is unanswerable.
Agree, except are you sure about your first point?
To be precise, it’s the powerful and militant French farming lobby that is driving you and the rest of us crazy. Meanwhile the Sicilian mafia tries to murder anyone who investigates the way it steals over £300M of EU agricultural subsidies a year. (Times, May 20th).
As I posted on another blog it feels to me that the rotten choice in the referendum is between technocrats and sociopaths, and I think the former will do less damage through ignorance and are more open to persuasion, especially if the UK was prepared to engage in a sensible way. The environment will not be top of either team’s list but I think the EU has a better track record than our Government in recognising and trying to deal with environmental problems. See the Habitats Regs, Water Framework Directive, Bans on harmful pesticides etc.
Like others I searched in vain for anything specific on the environment. The food and fisheries section unsurprisingly criticizes the CAP and CFP and few would argue with the contention that these policies are very problematic. However, as far as I can see the Brexit team’s position is that, post-EU, British farmers would continue to receive subsidies on a comparable scale but without being “…forced to comply with burdensome laws that drive up their costs.” So in other words the money would be provided with even fewer strings attached than at present. That does not seem to me to be a recipe for making British farming less environmentally damaging.
Outside the EU the British farming industry would still be heavily influenced by the CAP simply by virtue of the fact that it will still be competing with other European farming industries to sell its products in the EU area and will therefore depend on comparable subsidy levels in order to be competitive and will also need to meet EU environmental and food safety requirements. It seems to me that we are much better off remaining within the EU, where we can continue to try to reform the CAP, than we would be outside it where we will have little or no say in the CAP but will nevertheless be significantly affected by it.
I would also add that I care a lot about the state of the farming landscape and how hospitable it is to wildlife but my care does not stop at the UK border – I also care about wildlife in the rest of the EU, whether it be in those countries I know well or those I have rarely or never visited. By being part of the EU we have the possibility, at least, to help protect nature across the whole Union.
I think there are no killer facts that make the decision clear – we are speculating about the future and our capacity to influence things to favour the environment. Yes, it has proved very difficult to secure rapid changes in the CAP, but it has changed – do we think the post-Brexit UK Government would be as open to environmental influence as the EU? I doubt it, but I have no “fact” that proves this one way or another. Overall I think the environment has done better whilst we were within the EU (and its predecessors) and feel this would continue, despite questionable decisions that look likely to harm the environment. At the moment I would vote remain as I feel the alternative is too unpredictable by comparison.
I asked my MP, Bill Wiggin, and he told me that the environmental benefits gained from EU directives are not being debated by the remain campaign who seem obsessed with frightening people. If or when we leave the EU there is the assumption of continuity which would mean that there would be no need to change environmental regulations unless it was not working or there was a benefit to the UK. This is why it is not being attacked by the Leave campaign. If it ain’t broke etc… So that’s all right then?
He then went on to say that an alleged breach of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (England) (No.2) Regulations 2006, is probably quite a persuasive reason to a farmer who fertilised two of the last unimproved grasslands in our parish that the EU is not such a good idea. So is that what he means by “no need to change environmental regulations unless it was not working or there was a benefit to the UK”? It’s time to ramp up the environmental case for Remain!
Agriculture is certainly an Achilles heal of the EU – not least because half the budget goes on it, and it is largely failing to achieve one of its core objectives – maintaining population & economy in some of the EU’s poorest rural regions. Interesting that the £3.5 billion coming back from the EU to our farmers doesn’t get a mention ! However, it is characteristic of the debate that all our woes are heaped on the EU – pretty much the whole of the Brexit case. In fact, the adoption of CAP was a smooth transition for Britain from the subsidy regime established by the 1947 Agriculture Act. Would it be much different had we not joined ? Possibly not though it has been more than convenient for the current Government that CAP has allowed them to avoid cutting the money going to their farming friends and supporters. What is surprising is how enthusiastic many rural Tory MPs – like Owen Paterson – are for Brexit when it will almost certainly leave their farming constituents worse off.
Why ? Well, regardless of the promises money for agriculture will fall dramatically after Brexit – starting with the first economic crisis as the Government of the day fights desperately to stay in power – every vote will count and for the first time the tiny numbers of the agricultural community will start to tell. Br careful what you wish for: agri-environment money will go first and it is hard to predict what will happen in the uplands in particular, where land management will go into free fall.
And remember that the EU has actually achieved what every conservationist lobbies for – an international network of reserves reflecting how our birds live, not national boundaries. It has stopped Governments doing things they know they shouldn’t and continues to fund through LIFE major conservation progress when our domestic Government hasn’t just stopped progress but is allowing our scheduled sites to slip backwards.
I am undecided at the moment, with the Tory party in power if we leave what happens to our wildlife? If we leave what happens to the European Bird Directive? The Tories are not the Greens that they pretend to be are they, if we leave will they make their own rulings? Does the EU rulings help with species like Raven that have been under fire recently? I don’t want to make the wrong decision when our Wildlife is at stake, it’s bad enough now. Will we make it worse by leaving?
Whilst I share concerns about the CAP, what people fail to understand is that CAP is a framework, the implementation of CAP is decided by the national government and its appropriate departments. The problems of CAP in the UK are almost exclusively the result of DEFRA incompetence.
Take the issue of subsidy to farmers, embodied within the CAP structure, distributed by the Rural Payments Agency: they have failed year after year to deliver the finance to farmers on time, driving many out of the industry and others into loss and financial hardship and attracting fines from the EU.
The failure of the EU is in allowing member states, including the UK and Malta, bastions of the persecution and slaughter of endangered species, to derogate from the Birds and Habitats Directives.
Simon – the framework is pretty rigid. Most of the flexibility is to devolved UK governments over how to spend agri-envt money (not just Defra).