In her much anticipated speech today, the Prime Minister gave more detail on what the UK vote to leave the European Union will mean.
Crucially, she ended months of speculation by confirming that, in its upcoming negotiations with the EU, the UK Government will not be seeking membership of the EU Single Market.
Why does this matter for nature?
This matters because the trading arrangements between the UK and the EU have a bearing on environmental standards we need to adopt.
Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)
If the UK remained a member of the Single Market, it would have needed to continue to comply with most – but not all – EU environmental legislation. There would still have been some very notable gaps, including when it came to key pieces of legislation like the Birds and Habitats Directives and sectoral policies covering agriculture and fisheries, but many other policy areas would have been largely unaffected (the UK would simply have lost its vote on influencing the future direction of such policies).
Therefore, the implication of today’s announcement is that the vast majority of existing EU environmental legislation will not automatically apply following the UK’s departure from the UK.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has re-affirmed the Government’s commitment to converting the full body of existing EU law in UK law via the proposed ‘Great Repeal Bill’. Of course, we know that this will not be a straightforward process. Indeed, according to a recent report by the Environmental Audit Committee, it could still result in a significant weakening of environmental protections in the absence of full parliamentary scrutiny and a means of replacing the loss of existing EU governance mechanisms relied on to hold decision-makers to account and secure robust enforcement.
So, while the Prime Ministers speech provides some additional clarity, many questions still remain. As such, we agree with the Environmental Audit Committee’s call on the Government to urgently set out how it plans to “provide an equivalent or better level of protection” for nature as we exit the EU.
Looking to the future
Instead of Single Market membership, the Prime Minister has stated that the UK will seek “the greatest possible” market access via a bespoke Free Trade Agreement with the EU. On this issue, the Environmental Audit Committee has also been clear, recommending that when it comes to negotiating any such agreement, the Government must guarantee that “it will not trade away environmental protections...as part of the negotiations to leave, or as part of future trade deals.”
We agree. Indeed, to be a truly ‘Global UK’, maintaining current levels of environmental protection must be a red line in any such negotiations. We do not want to see a ‘race to the bottom’ in environmental standards as a means of trying to secure favourable terms in any future trade deal. Ultimately, protecting our environment and securing our future prosperity must go hand in hand. This will be a key message for the Greener UK coalition of which we are a founding member.
Working together to maintain standards and secure high levels of protection should be seen as an opportunity for on-going cooperation and collaboration both within the UK and across the EU as a whole. This is essential for future generations to be able to look back and know, as Theresa May put it today “...that we built them a better Britain”.
What scares me is the view the other way - to the USA. AS many are pointing out, Trump doesn't do win-win deals and who do you think is going to lose in May vs Trump ? There are scary things going on in the US - use of hormones in beef & dairy, both banned for entry into the EU. Even more scary is GM where it is starting to look as if resistance, far from being a problem, could be being built in to the GM business model. Resistance - to pesticides, to antibiotics - is a huge, looming issue for the world because it is quite clear that there will come a point where we've used up all our options.
What is the answer ? For UK land managers, getting together to generate a powerful vision for future land management which justifies public spend through public benefit before the bids come in from everywhere else has to be the right direction - the assumed further intensification/ lower standards model will be a disaster for farming as it can't compete on that pitch - both in the face of cheaper, more productive traders like New Zealand and more heavily subsidised ones like the US.