Since last June’s referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, it has felt a bit like watching and trying to influence a 3-dimensional game of chess with the rules being made up as we go along. Tonight, as the Brexit Bill passes its final parliamentary stages, it seems that the final hurdle before triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has been overcome. All this on the same day that the starting gun to the next referendum (this time regarding Scottish independence) has been fired.
Our job, as always, is to rise above the political fray and ensure that the environment does not get neglected during these major constitutional debates. The solidarity within the environmental sector is high and there is a real determination to do what we can to make Brexit work for nature.
This morning, I heard how others are adapting.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations hosted a seminar on how the charity sector is responding to the UK vote to leave the European Union. There were contributions from charities working on issues relating to health, children and older people while I provided an environmental perspective (covering themes which will be familiar to regular readers of my blog).
Brent geese on the move (Andy Hay, rspb-images.com)
Sir Stuart Etherington, NCVO’s Chief Executive, gave the keynote speech and his six themes struck a chord: charities should work harder to engage communities, continue to be evidence-based, be bold in engaging in public debate and giving truth to power; the UK Government must act quickly to secure rights of non-UK EU citizens (which account for 5% of charity workers), think creatively about either continuing to invest in European funding programmes or replacing lost funding streams and take care in retaining legislative standards through the Great Repeal.
While there are some areas where Greener UK will clearly take a lead (especially on calls for bolstering environmental legislation, reforming agriculture/fisheries policy and on making the case for sustained international leadership on tackling twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change), there are some areas where it makes sense to collaborate beyond our sector.
For example, regarding the Great Repeal Bill, many will share our view that there must be robust parliamentary scrutiny of any future changes to regulations that transposed EU law. We know that the Government intends to use “the Great Repeal Bill to bring the current framework of environmental regulation in UK and devolved law” and the Brexit White paper makes it clear that, once we have left the EU, we will be free to “keep, amend or repeal” any of the EU laws converted into domestic law via the Great Repeal Bill. Our concern is that the Great Repeal Bill will create a scenario by which (current or future) ministers can alter and withdraw objectives with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. We, and I hope others in the charity sector, will be working hard to ensure that future legislative changes are subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
Equally, all of us that benefit from non-UK EU workers, want their rights secured as quickly as possible. The uncertainty over the current situation is clearly creating anxiety for everyone.
And finally, we have, within this country, a rich tradition of volunteering and of charities. The RSPB is 128 years old and today, in addition to our 1.2 million members, we benefit from nearly a million hours of time that is given for free by our supporters. All of us who work (in a paid or voluntary capacity) for charities want to make the world a better place. And that sometimes means challenging the actions of decision-makers. I believe that it is in government’s interest for civil society to have its voice heard in public debate as the evidence, expertise and challenge we offer can ultimately lead to better decisions. And this applies, even in the most complex constitutional debates relating to the future of the United Kingdom and its relationship with the European Union.
Good blog Martin. It just shows how very very concerning the whole situation is, especially when this Government has a free hand to do what it likes with our environmental laws. With the current attitude of some of the present ministers towards wildlife conservation one shudders to think about it.
What I am not quite clear about is whether Scotland would be free to adopt its own approach to keeping or altering the current UK/EU environmental laws if it remaind part of the UK. They at least seem to take a slightly more enlightened view and hope fully would not make any significant alterations.