BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jos Stratford" data-source="post: 3368521" data-attributes="member: 12449">I would also hope a good education allows someone to have their own opinion. I see no educational shortcomings on the part of those with an opinion that differs from yours. It is a low form of argument indeed to resort to suggesting those that hold differing views to yours have somehow failed to achieve some sort of level in logic and rational thinking, etc.  For what it's worth, despite attending UK schools that did not explicitly teach the subjects you mention, I have worked in the conservation and wildlife sectors in the UK - for the RSPB, for wildlife trusts and for a university - and now work in an EU country in Eastern Europe, where I maintain land as a reserve, work in the Institute of Ecology and, to a limited degree, have had dealings with the Ministry of the Environment on EU related environmental issues.Seeing conservation and environmental work in action and practice in both the UK and in the EU, I still maintain that a British departure is not going to have an overall negative impact on the environment (nor do I think it is going to have an overall positive impact). As said, you may have a different opinion, but do not seek to suggest there is a failing in education amongst those who argue against your viewpoint.Regarding the use of 'alleging' - as suggested earlier, come and take a week's holiday here for yourself. EU funds are being used for everything, mostly totally unrelated to the the environment, but it will take very little time to find schemes that do adversely affect the environment, most particularly regarding EU finding for needless agricultural actions. End of June is peak grass cutting season, end of June is peak breeding season for Corncrakes et al -do enjoy the vote on 23 June ...on that very day, unless weather gives them a temporary reprieve, many thousands of Corncrakes and other grassland birds will be chopped with EU funding."We need to be in the tent to have an impact"In this thread, several posters have suggested that EU membership is vital because without its legislation, wealthy UK landowners and their Tory chums will be able to do what they want and the result will be environmental calamity. On this thread, posters have suggested that Britain's membership is vital because the UK needs to be a member to have an impact on driving EU reform to improve environmental standards elsewhere in the EU.Hmm, so without the EU, those with influence will use it for the negative, but in the EU, those with influence will use it for the positive?In reality, in my opinion, with Britain in or out of the EU, the overall impact on the environment will be not very significant either way. As a single member, Britain does not have much authority to bring about change  - if other countries do not like the suggested reforms or legislation, they simply block it or ignore it. Even when Britain is moving towards a potential exit, the concessions that Cameron got from the EU (in non-environmental spheres) were essentially limited and opposed by East European countries by and large. With the referendum over, presuming Britain is still a member, the UK is not going to suddenly have any clout to deal with EU environmental weaknesses, even presuming it wanted to. At the operating level, my admittedly limited experience suggests countries in this part of the EU don't even care if they break EU regulations: I needed to debate last year with heads of departments in the Ministry of the Environment over an issue where the country was preparing to violate EU regulation - several times the comment was 'we don't actually care what the EU says, we do what we want ...they will do nothing, or at worst we will get a rap over the hand 12 months later and told to change something, which probably we will have already done by then'. East European countries, and the agricultural sector more widely, see the EU as a cash cow. There is little desire for reform and, from the evidence I have seen over the years, Britain has shown little desire to see change anyhow. In or out of the EU, no big difference on the environment. So, for me, the decision is on other factors ...and then, for me, the vote would be to leave.Given that almost all European countries have joined, it would be interesting to see which countries this bunch of scientists have been comparing to. More importantly, how much of this apparent increase is due to improved economic wealth, or other factor, rather than to EU environmental policy? EU membership brings two main factors to the landscapes of Eastern Europe, which to a certain extent have opposing effects on the environment:1. Massive depopulation, especially of rural areas. Lithuania's population has dropped from 3.7 million when I arrived to 2.9 million today (wonder where they have all gone? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> ). In the rural landscape, the result of this is more fallow land, more scrub overgrowth.2. Intensification of farming. Land management is fast changing from traditional styles of agriculture where much was still done with horses and hand cutting, etc, to more 'efficient' larger scale farming, this intensifying with the widescale availability of grants to increase 'efficiency'.In Lithuania at least, in the short term, probably factor one is still prevalent - which is good for some birds, Red-backed Shrikes et al, but not really for others, Corncrakes, Lesser Spotted Eagles et al due to scrub encroachment. Longer term, as factor 2 becomes more prevalent, I personally see the situation rather less good, landscapes intensifying and becoming more monocultures.</blockquote>

Verification