• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Wildlife protection laws under threat in the UK (1 Viewer)

Jos Stratford said:
Given the state of raptors on English moors today, in a situation where the UK has been a member of the EU for 40 years, clearly the EU is not proving effective in offering protection (as is also the case in several other EU countries). It is twaddle to try and blame Brexit for raptor persecution - a member of the EU or not a member of the EU, raptor protection is clearly failing and has been doing so whilst subject to all EU legislation. This is down to the British government and British enforcement (or lack of) of existing laws, which were also not exactly amazing under previous Labour regimes either. You vote whoever is in power in, vent your anger towards them, ultimately it is down to you to demand better.


PS. your first sentence is your usual crap
Click to expand...

Indeed so.

Unless British raptors receive a European listing (like Bats or Great Crested Newts), the protection offered to individuals (so not SAC, SPA relevant) is unaffected by Brexit. The protected list, on which I see no raptors, or indeed birds, relevant to the UK is here:

http://naturenet.net/law/europe.html

The UK parliament can increase / reduce the protection offered to all raptors or none and this is unaffected by the EU.

cheers, alan
 
My understanding is that there wouldn't be any birds listed as a European Protected Species because the list is included as part of the Habitats Directive, whereas birds are covered under the Birds Directive.
 
Jos Stratford said:
Given the state of raptors on English moors today, in a situation where the UK has been a member of the EU for 40 years, clearly the EU is not proving effective in offering protection (as is also the case in several other EU countries). It is twaddle to try and blame Brexit for raptor persecution - a member of the EU or not a member of the EU, raptor protection is clearly failing and has been doing so whilst subject to all EU legislation. This is down to the British government and British enforcement (or lack of) of existing laws, which were also not exactly amazing under previous Labour regimes either. You vote whoever is in power in, vent your anger towards them, ultimately it is down to you to demand better.


PS. your first sentence is your usual crap
Click to expand...

This is Schrodinger's EU Parliament.. That simultaneously takes away a Nations' Sovereign powers, whilst at the same time having no power.

(Similar to Schrodinger's immigrants, who simultaneously all come to the UK and take all the jobs, while all coming over here claiming unemployment benefits.)
 
peter.jones said:
This is Schrodinger's EU Parliament.. That simultaneously takes away a Nations' Sovereign powers, whilst at the same time having no power.
Click to expand...

That's quite a large misrepresentation of many peoples' genuine concerns about the EU.

Anyway, can we get back to wildlife? ;-)
 
katastrofa said:
That's quite a large misrepresentation of many peoples' genuine concerns about the EU.

Anyway, can we get back to wildlife? ;-)
Click to expand...


Schrodinger’s Brexit? There's an interesting one. "A future in which we could boost economic activity and free business of regulation and invest more in the NHS and limit immigration and keep funding all the things that the EU currently pays for and and and…"

Whichever way, quite a lot of people will be the ones holding a box.. containing a dead cat.

(Which could be good for wildlife lol)
 
peter.jones said:
This is Schrodinger's EU Parliament.. That simultaneously takes away a Nations' Sovereign powers, whilst at the same time having no power.
Click to expand...

So Peter, if I understand, you disagree with what I set out. Which bit was wrong? Hen Harriers aren't being persecuted to the point of extinction on English moors despite EU legislation?

The poor state of affairs regarding aspects of UK raptor protection is down to the failure of the UK authorities. Even if staying in the EU, effective protection would still be down to the UK authorities. Raptors are not under threat due to Brexit, they are under threat due to British lack of enforcement of existing measures. Even under a rosy EU future, this would remain so. Vote in better people.
 
peter.jones said:
Schrodinger’s Brexit? There's an interesting one. "A future in which we could boost economic activity and free business of regulation and invest more in the NHS and limit immigration and keep funding all the things that the EU currently pays for and and and…"

Whichever way, quite a lot of people will be the ones holding a box.. containing a dead cat.

(Which could be good for wildlife lol)
Click to expand...

Loving the Schrodinger's Cat analogy for Brexit. The trouble is that until you have observed the result, you don't know what's going to happen or indeed what is going on. The paradox is that our relationship with Europe might be dead or alive. Come back in five or ten years when we 'open the box'. Until then all outcomes are possible.

cheers, alan
 
And those wearing the rose-tinted EU specs, please bear in mind that the number one threat facing harriers here in eastern EU is not illegal persecution by gamekeepers or others (this is pretty much non-existent here), but EU-funded projects that compel farmers to cut grass exactly when the harriers are breeding.

EU environmental laws have much to commend them, but I would say that EU agricultural policies are directly responsible for a far greater carnage than the illegal activities of UK gamekeepers, not only of harriers, but thousands of corncrakes et al each and every year.
 
peter.jones said:
I'll let you know when we've opened the box.
Click to expand...

Hopefully it will not contain any nasty surprises.

Ha ha ha, if Britain leaves with no deal and relations really go bad with mutual expulsion of citizens, the nastiest surprise of all could be the reappearance of Jos in the UK. Gee, poor UK, you really don't deserve that ;)
 
I'm cautiously optimistic that EU wildlife legislation won't disappear overnight once incorporated into UK law in the 'great repeal bill'. This is both for negative reasons - the fact it isn't seen as important - and positive reasons, insofar as the pressure to 'cut red tape' will be offset by public resistance (including crucially from within the Conservative party) against dilution of environmental protection legislation - including air quality standards as well as wildlife.
What is worrying in the longer term is the removal of the very thing many people voted against - the oversight provided by the European court, and its role in reigning in too lax a national interpretation of the Habitats and Birds Directive. To give an example, the fact that air quality was in the news recently has a lot to do with adverse decisions of the European court against UK non-compliance.
The removal of European case law from the decision-making process will instantly weaken the interpretation of Directives, once incorporated into UK law. Of course, in theory we can all vote for politicians who, unencumbered by the European courts, could improve our wildlife protection legislation - but with no effective opposition this isn't going to happen any time soon.
Of course the EU is far from perfect in terms of wildlife protection, from the madness of the Common Agricultural Policy as described above by Jos, to the lack of influence over lax hunting laws in Malta. If I'm being really optimistic, there is a chance if the EU27 go down the path of greater integration, less 'subsidiarity', then proper EU-wide enforcement of migratory flyway protection could be achieved - although you'd have to be really optimistic to see any meaningful reform of the CAP.
 
kb57 said:
If I'm being really optimistic, there is a chance if the EU27 go down the path of greater integration, less 'subsidiarity', then proper EU-wide enforcement of migratory flyway protection could be achieved - although you'd have to be really optimistic to see any meaningful reform of the CAP.
Click to expand...

I hope I am wrong, but I fear that over the medium to long term, the EU27 is going to swing to a slightly less pleasant version of the EU that exists today, not necessarily in environmental areas, but more in general. There is a significant block of countries - think Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, etc - that do not share the values of the greater EU and are already pushing to reject the values of the EU and adopt a far less humane path. Hungary in particular already disregards directives of the EU when it comes to the treatment of people who are crossing its territory, Poland is passing laws on media that trouble the EU, etc. There is a long list of issues. At the same time, swings in western European members could also lead in such direction (France, Netherlands). Even the EU itself is making deals with autocratic Turkey to wipe itself free of the 'problems' of refugees, effectively forcing many into yet longer and more dangerous sea crossings.

The values that the EU stood for are diluted and actively opposed. If environmental issues stand in the way of bigger things, not sure I would trust some of the members to give two figs.
 
kb57 said:
I'm cautiously optimistic that EU wildlife legislation won't disappear overnight once incorporated into UK law in the 'great repeal bill'. This is both for negative reasons - the fact it isn't seen as important - and positive reasons, insofar as the pressure to 'cut red tape' will be offset by public resistance (including crucially from within the Conservative party) against dilution of environmental protection legislation - including air quality standards as well as wildlife.
What is worrying in the longer term is the removal of the very thing many people voted against - the oversight provided by the European court, and its role in reigning in too lax a national interpretation of the Habitats and Birds Directive. To give an example, the fact that air quality was in the news recently has a lot to do with adverse decisions of the European court against UK non-compliance.
The removal of European case law from the decision-making process will instantly weaken the interpretation of Directives, once incorporated into UK law. Of course, in theory we can all vote for politicians who, unencumbered by the European courts, could improve our wildlife protection legislation - but with no effective opposition this isn't going to happen any time soon.
Of course the EU is far from perfect in terms of wildlife protection, from the madness of the Common Agricultural Policy as described above by Jos, to the lack of influence over lax hunting laws in Malta. If I'm being really optimistic, there is a chance if the EU27 go down the path of greater integration, less 'subsidiarity', then proper EU-wide enforcement of migratory flyway protection could be achieved - although you'd have to be really optimistic to see any meaningful reform of the CAP.
Click to expand...

A sensible, balanced analysis. However, specifically regarding air pollution, from what I have read, the promulgation of diesel cars was largely down to the EU promoting diesel in order to meet carbon emission targets, after lobbying from German car makers, despite robust evidence that they were harmful to health. Apparently, US diplomats privately expressed astonishement that the EU was pursuing diesel as an environmentally friendly alternative. Forgive me if I therefore fail to see the EU as a champion of air quality!
 
DMW said:
Forgive me if I therefore fail to see the EU as a champion of air quality!
Click to expand...
I don't either! It's very true that the incentives for diesel were driven by the now-discredited VW et al, and may have delayed the introduction of more effective means of reducing vehicle carbon emissions. I always thought this was at the expense of underplaying the human health and ecological effects of NOx emissions. Despite this, NOx levels were predicted to decline in line with tighter emission controls - the fact they didn't at the rate that was expected was a conundrum finally explained by the VW scandal.
As far as UK is concerned though, we needed the push from the EU courts to address the non-compliance with our own air quality standards in our big cities. Hopefully now the issue is higher up the political agenda, with politicians such as the current London Mayor pushing higher air quality standards, we can make some real improvements.
 
Jos Stratford said:
I hope I am wrong, but I fear that over the medium to long term, the EU27 is going to swing to a slightly less pleasant version of the EU that exists today, not necessarily in environmental areas, but more in general. There is a significant block of countries - think Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, etc - that do not share the values of the greater EU and are already pushing to reject the values of the EU and adopt a far less humane path. Hungary in particular already disregards directives of the EU when it comes to the treatment of people who are crossing its territory, Poland is passing laws on media that trouble the EU, etc. There is a long list of issues. At the same time, swings in western European members could also lead in such direction (France, Netherlands). Even the EU itself is making deals with autocratic Turkey to wipe itself free of the 'problems' of refugees, effectively forcing many into yet longer and more dangerous sea crossings.

The values that the EU stood for are diluted and actively opposed. If environmental issues stand in the way of bigger things, not sure I would trust some of the members to give two figs.
Click to expand...

I did say 'if I'm being really optimistic'...sadly I know your analysis might prove more likely.
On the environmental front, I've just been reading about the widespread tree felling in Poland. The current government of Poland sounds truly appalling - their (pre-accession) laws included designations such as 'monument of nature' which could be applied to individual trees, now their environment minister seems to think they have a (literally) God-given right to subjugate nature.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

B
100 organisations unite to fight threat to European nature laws (RSPB)
Replies
0
Views
688
BF Newsroom
B
Chris Monk
Grouse moors: Under fire (The Independent)
Replies
18
Views
3K
RobF
RobF
A
Malta - New hunting trapping curbs planned
Replies
3
Views
2K
Greg L
G
Charlie M
Wind Farm threat to Portland Harbour
Replies
3
Views
2K
Charlie M
Charlie M
A
Malta - EU Bird Directive
Replies
1
Views
3K
delia todd
delia todd

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top