• 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.

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

katastrofa

Registered User
Supporter
Norway
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_a...ife_laws_must_be_celebrated_and_retained.html

"Despite David Davis' promise that environmental protections will remain in place when the UK leaves the EU, wildlife protection after Brexit faces an uncertain future. The Great Repeal Bill is intended to incorporate existing European legislation into UK law, giving parliament the power to "amend, repeal or improve" laws at a later date.

However the environment secretary, Andrea Leadsom, has indicated that only about two-thirds of existing environmental law will be transposed into UK law, leaving groups such as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust concerned about what will happen to the remainder."
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Seeing the way the Govt. trashed the petitions about grouse moors and badgers, I can see that all raptor protection laws will be rescinded, and gamekeepers, farmers and other land managers will be allowed to do whatever they like (including repeal of older, non-EU laws like the ban on pole traps). Also fox hunting reintroduced, and laws to make protesting against it illegal, with groups like the League Against Cruel Sports proscribed as 'terrorist organisations'.

We can also expect to see appointments like senior gamekeepers from notorious raptor hell-holes being given posts as heads of English Nature, etc., as being "the most experienced wildlife managers in the country".

Edit: Oh, and also no land anywhere, to have any protection from fracking, and no legal right to object (even for the landowner) to it or protest against it. We are already most of the way there.
 
Last edited:

MJB

Well-known member
However the environment secretary, Andrea Leadsom, has indicated that only about two-thirds of existing environmental law will be transposed into UK law, leaving groups such as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust concerned about what will happen to the remainder."

So the long-running campaign to remove some lead from the environment isn't the same thing as removing Leadsom from the Environment? Pity.:-C:-C:-C
MJB
 

Strontium Dog

Well-known member
Those voices who claimed that Brexit would be good for wildlife are noticeably absent from proceedings here now that the facts are out. I wonder why...
 

Mono

Hi!
Staff member
Supporter
Europe
Except there are no facts...

All I have seen is a couple of comment pieces in the Telegraph. The stated position is as it was, all regulations that have a basis under EU law will be taken, en masse, into UK law.

All this talk of a "bonfire of red tape", is just wishful thinking, Britain loves regulation we invented red tape. The UK Income tax regulations are 17,000 pages, the EU directives said jump and we leapt to the sky!

As for Angela Leadsom she neither knows nor cares she took Environment because it was the only job offered.
 

keith

Well-known member
The Wildlife Protection Laws don't seem to be doing much to protect the birds trying to pass through Malta.
 

Had.enough

Registered User
Supporter
The way I see it, this Government has a particular way of doing things..
Step 1: They'll announce something
Step 2: They monitor the flak and resistance to it
Step 3: They go ahead if the resistance isn't too great, or do a u-turn and claim that the u-turn was what they meant all along

I'm looking at the lists of Foreign workers, Grammar schools, Article 50 white paper, Parliament voting on the EU exit deal. There is an example pretty much every week.

Andrea Leadsom claimed that they could only import 3/4 of EU laws in UK law, the others "won't be easy to transpose into UK law". Now I can't think of a scenario in which a law that we currently adhere to can't become a UK law, and she isn't naming any either. But she is putting it out there that 1/4 of the Environmental laws could be removed.

Then she waits, and sees for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ronmental-regulations-brexit-renewable-energy
(Or a petition with half a million signatures if people were totally outraged),

And there you have the basis of the Government policy going forward, that keeps voters sweet. Very concerning that her main opposition is coming from a Tory think tank and Conservative voters, but that is another story.

What they love is for people to be bickering about Brexiteers and Remoaners, because it reduces the scrutiny and resistance to their plans.
 

katastrofa

Registered User
Supporter
Norway
The Wildlife Protection Laws don't seem to be doing much to protect the birds trying to pass through Malta.

Or Polish trees now. But when Poland tried to build a concrete road through Bialowieza Forest (a European wildlife treasure), EU regulations stopped them.
 

katastrofa

Registered User
Supporter
Norway
The way I see it, this Government has a particular way of doing things..
Step 1: They'll announce something
Step 2: They monitor the flak and resistance to it
Step 3: They go ahead if the resistance isn't too great, or do a u-turn and claim that the u-turn was what they meant all along

That's democracy, isn't it? If the majority of the people are against something, it's not going through.

Now compare this with how EU decision-making works:
Step 1: They'll announce something
Step 2: They pretend to listen
Step 3: They will go ahead with their plan anyway, because the decision-making centers are removed from people and not subject to direct democratic control.

It's been this way with CETA, TTIP. It almost went this way to Monsanto and bee-killing pesticides.

And there you have the basis of the Government policy going forward, that keeps voters sweet. Very concerning that her main opposition is coming from a Tory think tank and Conservative voters, but that is another story.

I think it's very good that BOTH sides of the political spectrum in Britain care about the environment. It makes me proud to be the citizen of this country.
 

katastrofa

Registered User
Supporter
Norway
PS. EU has rules against "goldplating" which mean that a member country cannot impose stricter regulations than the common ones, because Single Market etc. This has been increasingly often applied by the European Commission, for example in financial market regulations.

Single Market regulations also prevented the UK from banning live animal exports, but that's another story.
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
PS. EU has rules against "goldplating" which mean that a member country cannot impose stricter regulations than the common ones, because Single Market etc. This has been increasingly often applied by the European Commission, for example in financial market regulations.

Single Market regulations also prevented the UK from banning live animal exports, but that's another story.

That can't be true, as UK has higher welfare standards for some farm animals than some other EU countries, e.g., bans on sow stalls and crated veal calves. Conversely, some other EU countries have higher standards for some other environment-related matters than UK does, e.g. much tighter control of what happens on shooting estates (UK is extraordinarily lax here).
 

katastrofa

Registered User
Supporter
Norway
That can't be true, as UK has higher welfare standards for some farm animals than some other EU countries, e.g., bans on sow stalls and crated veal calves. Conversely, some other EU countries have higher standards for some other environment-related matters than UK does, e.g. much tighter control of what happens on shooting estates (UK is extraordinarily lax here).

I'm not saying that maximum harmonisation is applied everywhere, but the EU has been pushing in this direction lately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_harmonisation
 

Trystan

Well-known member
That can't be true, as UK has higher welfare standards for some farm animals than some other EU countries, e.g., bans on sow stalls and crated veal calves. Conversely, some other EU countries have higher standards for some other environment-related matters than UK does, e.g. much tighter control of what happens on shooting estates (UK is extraordinarily lax here).

I think what it means is, we can have higher standards for our farms but can't stop European products with lower standards being bought in because they conform to the necessary EU legislation. Businesses will prefer this because they will be cheaper, meaning more profit.

This does give businesses yet another excuse to increase prices after and during the process but what is really at fault here is the capitalist system, big business having too much sway over governments and ridiculous discrepancies in pay between those at the top and those at the bottom of companies. Remainers should not lose site of that.
 
Last edited:

lewis20126

Well-known member
EU Parliament today, from BBC:

What are the red lines?

The motion backs a number of positions taken by EU leaders, including the need for a "phased approach" to negotiations.

This would require progress on the terms of Britain's withdrawal, including settling financial commitments, before talks on a future trading relationship can start.

It also backs the call for transparency in the talks, and for the UK to be considered liable for financial commitments that apply after it leaves the EU.

It also says:
◾transitional arrangements should be time-limited to three years and be enforced by the EU's Court of Justice
◾UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in Britain should receive "reciprocal" treatment
◾the final deal should not include a "trade-off" between trade and security co-operation
◾the UK should adhere to EU environmental and anti-tax evasion standards to get close trade ties
◾the European Banking Authority and European Medicines Agency should be moved out of London
◾the UK should pay towards costs for the EU that "arise directly from its withdrawal"

So, if there is a deal, it seems unlikely that the UK will be able to ditch the EU environmental laws, whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing.

cheers, alan
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
...

So, if there is a deal, it seems unlikely that the UK will be able to ditch the EU environmental laws, whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing.
That's a big IF, though – the hard-line brexiteers who are running the show would rather not have a deal at all; and a lot of that looks to be coming from their not wanting to abide by the EU environment laws. Just look at the way they treated the Grouse petition, for example: for the moment, they're pretending that raptor persecution is an invention of "extremists" like Chris Packham, but for the future, what they really want is to go back to the 19th century and have all raptors destroyed as 'vermin'. They can't do that while Britain is in the EU, nor if Britain signs a deal, but they can – and will – when they get the 'hard' brexit they want.
 

Jos Stratford

Beast from the East
That's a big IF, though – the hard-line brexiteers who are running the show would rather not have a deal at all; and a lot of that looks to be coming from their not wanting to abide by the EU environment laws. Just look at the way they treated the Grouse petition, for example: for the moment, they're pretending that raptor persecution is an invention of "extremists" like Chris Packham, but for the future, what they really want is to go back to the 19th century and have all raptors destroyed as 'vermin'. They can't do that while Britain is in the EU, nor if Britain signs a deal, but they can – and will – when they get the 'hard' brexit they want.

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
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top