It turns out that 111 MPs defied the party whips to vote for a referendum on our membership of the European Union. I find it odd that so much emotional energy has been and still is invested in debating this issue. At times I wish as much effort was invested in trying to reform existing EU policies and regulations. As the Foreign Secretary said in yesterday's debate, this is not the time for the UK to be marginalised when a trillion euros is up for grabs as part of the EU Budget for 2014-2020.
But for an environmentalist it is hard to see how we can achieve our objectives without some form of trans-national arrangement. This is not a defence of the European Union model - just a statement of fact. If you want to tackle climate change you need countries to work together to agree to reductions of greenhouse gas emissions (ideally in line with the science). If you want to have a significant impact on the unsustainable trade in wild birds, then you are more likely to have more of an impact if you choke the supply to a large geographical area rather than just one country.
And, if you want to prevent any country for obtaining competititve advantage by destroying her local environment, then it makes sense to have some standard rules by which important places are protected. This was, as it happens, one of the defining purposes of the 1979 Birds Directive and its sister, the Habitats and Species Directive of 1992. Since then, these directives have delivered great things. Not only have they improved the prospects of wildlife across Europe, but they have also established remarkably sensible rules to guide sustainable development.
Under these nature directives for example, if a development is have an adverse impact on a site of European importance then it is the obligation of the developer to determine whether there is an alternative, more benign way of achieving the objective of the development. And if there is not, then the development will need to be of overriding national interest to proceed. And if it is, then there is an obligation to compensate for the damage caused by replacing the extent and functional quality of the habitat which has been lost. That's a pretty straightforward way to assess whether development is sustainable to me.
Yes, the EU has its faults - cumbersome or bureacratic at times, prone to the odd madcap idea etc - but about 80% of our environmental laws started with debates from within the Union. If it didn't exist, well for the environment at least, we'd probably have to create something similar in its place.
But you may disagree. Can you think of a more efficient way to organise ourselves to save the planet?