Boris sneers at environmental protection

It was an interesting decision to choose Boris Johnson, one of the most distrusted politicians in a distrusted government, to ‘reach out’ to us all over Brexit in a divisive speech entitled ‘Uniting for a Great Brexit‘. Did it work for you?

Here is one passsage:

We can simplify planning, and speed up public procurement, and perhaps we would then be faster in building the homes young people need; and we might decide that it was indeed absolutely necessary for every environmental impact assessment to monitor 2 life cycles of the snail or to build special swimming pools for newts – not all of which they use in my experience – but it would at least be our decision to do that.‘.

This argument is wearing thin – the argument is that we can do much better on the environment when not held back by those EU bureaucrats.  It is a theoretical possibility , but it is a a vanishingly remote possibility when people like Boris are at the helm.

The passage quoted above reveals this governments’ hard-Brexiteers’ dislike of environmental protection. The occasional ability of a few efts to delay some dodgy development will be used as the anecdote to remove wide-ranging and valuable environmental protections that the UK has spent decades helping to shape.   Removing protection for workers and the environment is at the heart of this great free-trading British economy which we are promised.  It’s a narrow and inaccurate view of the future, and even if it were true, it’s not a future I wish to see.

Neither Johnson nor Gove has actually told us what this great British environmental future will look like. That’s because they don’t have a clue. And it’s also because the Brexiteers want to take away from us all the environmental protection that does so much good for the many but restricts the earning potential of the few.  Yes, environmental protection is there to protect wildlife and natural processes when some developer wants to destroy them. And yes, that means a few people can’t make money by trashing our shared natural heritage sometimes. That is why we have environmental laws. And it’s why we need them.  Would you trust this government, of all governments, to produce better environmental protection than we have now post-Brexit?

Before you answer that question just look at how well Defra is doing at the moment to implement the current EU-wide environmental protection for blanket bogs and birds of prey. I ask you, is this going to improve when we leave the EU? Is Michael Gove being held back by EU red tape from protecting the Hen Harriers and the blanket bogs he loves?  Or is the disregard for their duties a clear sign of what is in store in future?

If Brexit happens, then neglect of environmental protection by Defra and NE will not need to happen surreptitiously and through stealth but dismantling of that protection will be driven through by Henry VIII clauses followed by primary legislation.

 

 

[registration_form]

13 Replies to “Boris sneers at environmental protection”

  1. A major irony here is that Boris’s dad, Stanley, was the sponsor of the Habitats and Birds Directives now the basis of EU law.
    ps I would spell your header word “sneer”!

    1. Richard – indeed (see Fighting for Birds p88).

      ps I would spell it luike that too! Not sure why I didn’t type it like that. Thanks for pointing it out.

  2. I’m amazed by the naivety of conservationists who seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker the machinations of a ruthless opportunist like Michael Gove, a consummate politico who already has a proven track record of which we should need little reminding – let alone Boris Johnson. Politicos trade on their words – and very pretty Michael Gove’s words have been now that he has realised that the “green blob” actually comprises the millions of voted he so covets – but they must be held to account by their actions. I expect nothing from Boris Johnson, while Michael Gove has yet to prove that he can do more than court an environmental sector anxious to identify a viable political representative.

  3. I’m not sure what scares me more; Brexit itself or the notion of a rampant Johnson, Gove et al after Brexit has come about. The one reassuring thought is that if the country comes to its senses and rejects the one then the other will inevitably vanish up the obvious orifice.

  4. At least you guys have been assured that your right to go on stag weekends to Tallinn will be protected. I’m sure you are all relieved about that!

    1. I would not expect every one to know this Lyn but the UK’s foreign secretary should be aware that a few days ago a young Scotsman disappeared in Germany after a stag night, there is a massive police search . Perhaps Johnson should be “doing the day job” rather than making pointless speeches which seemed unbelievably to include references to sex holidays in Thailand and references to dogging, nudge nudge wink wink . The man is an idiot, and a dangerous one at that he and his minute right wing cabal are taking this country over a cliff edge , but they will be all right Jack, they are all multi millionaires after all.

  5. As you point out Mark, who would trust the current (or future) government when it comes to environmental protection, given their largely miserable track record? One potentially concerning development (among many) is that the environmental principles (e.g. precautionary principle) currently enshrined in EU law may not be transferred across to into UK legislation post-Brexit. Instead, I believe Michael Gove has hinted* that they might be included in a future National Policy Statement, which successive governments may find easier to dilute than if they were placed on a firm legal basis.

    Even if adequate environmental protections are maintained post-Brexit, these will need to be enforced properly. Given the current political climate of budget-cuts and anti-quango rhetoric, it’s difficult to see an independent well-resourced regulator capable of safeguarding the environment being set up.

    Presumably, politicians like Johnson will not deviate from their long-held modus operandi, and continue to peddle hackneyed anecdotes about newts in order to discredit the idea of strong environmental protections. Personally I would like to see organisations like the RSPB taking more of a visible stand on these issues, and try to raise public awareness of the threats facing nature and the environment post-Brexit.

    *http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/environmental-audit-committee/the-governments-environmental-policy/oral/72503.html

  6. Mark and all the other posters, so far, are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the wildlife room.

    The MAIN cause of loss of wildlife abundance (and biodiversity) in the UK is LOSS OF HABITAT.

    We all know that.

    The MAIN cause of loss of habitat is the uncontrolled growth of our human population.

    So long as the freedom of movement of people is enshrined in EU law, there is no way we can protect our wildlife habitats.

    Conservationist Remainers simply REFUSE to address the adverse effect of uncontrolled human population growth on our wildlife!

    (The corollary applies to the world-wide loss of wildlife habitats and human population growth).

    Because of economic conditions, we suffer an UNSUSTAINABLE net increase in economic migration into the UK from the EU.

    My metaphorical charge to you all is this: Remainers want to replace the animals on Noah’s Ark with more people. I do not. The EU law enforcing freedom of movement works out to be anti-conservationist.

    Please, what is your response? How many people do you think the UK should hold? Which species could/should be ‘sacrificed’ in order to hold that number?

    What size human population do you all think is SUSTAINABLE for the UK? And what effect do you think that size population will have on wildlife?

    Are these questions too difficult to answer?

      1. OK then, Mark, answer one: what is the sustainable population of the UK?

        You see, I think you are misleading me. I think you have no idea what the sustainable population is.

        I suspect you do not really believe that habitat loss is due to increasing human population and therefore have no conservation incentive to either want to reduce our population growth, or to stop it altogether.

        The current level of net immigration from the EU is equivalent to a new Chelmsford every year – and that is after the Brexit vote which has reduced EU immigration – while the current level of net immigration overall is more than a new Northampton every year!

        Do you really think that is sustainable? If you do not, how do you propose to reduce it whilst supporting EU membership and its freedom of movement?

        Or, don’t you care?

  7. Boris Johnson’s ridiculous statement about “simplifying planning and speeding up public procurement for homes young people need” – and deciding whether we really need environmental impact assessments for ‘2 life cycles of (Desmoulin’s) snail or building swimming pools for (Great Crested) newts’ – is bollocks because THERE ARE 423,544 UNBUILT HOMES in England and Wales for which PLANNING PERMISSION HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN!

    See http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/02/more-planning-approved-homes-not-being-built-says-lga

    The planning process is already fixed in favour of development.

Comments are closed.