Europe: In or Out

[beorhthelm]

I'm pretty sure the answer to your first question is yes. Environmental protections are always the first on the block when development is at stake, and its taken a more 'neutral' body like the EU to get the strong protections we have now. Past governments's have regularly stripped SSSI's of their status to allow development, but European safeguards have prevented this at many sites. The European commission has even had to bring legal cases against the British govenrment in some cases to prevent destruction of habitats. Regulations on the importation of non-sustainable timber and palm oil, amongst other products, are pushed by the EU, I highly doubt it would be as strong at national level. Fishing quotas are set by the EU, I imagine if we're out if it we'll be back in a fishing arms race with Iceland and Norway.

You may scoff, but our entire national rivers authority and the adoption of strict emissions limits has come from the EU, as has our approach to sewage treatment, releases of nitrates and the quality of beaches and bathing waters. The common agricultural policy - its not great - but does provides subsidies in return for good stewardship of wildlife habitat and controlling pollution from fertilisers and pesticides. Prior to joining the EU we had the highest level of acid rain in Europe, and ministers used to pretend that they were waiting for 'sound science' before doing anything about it - much like these climate change deniers elsewhere on this thread. Since joing the EU SO2 levels are down over 80%. If we stay in the EU, large polluting coal-fired plants will have to close, if we leave, they could stay open.In recent years the UK government has sought to block strict rules limiting imports of tar sands at the European level, tried to water down the EU energy efficiency directive and threatened to block an EU pesticide ban that will protect bees. Then there is REACH, on the regulation of dangerous chemicals. Tory EU-sceptics say this is red-tape that dames the economy. Yet this is the law that prevents the sale of toxic flammable pyjamas for children or the exposure to dangerous chemicals in the workplace.

The UK government has always had a poor track record on environmental concerns and I see no reason why this would change post-EU.

you raise these points as if they are all positive and all dependent on the EU. on SSSIs, are all necessarily worthy? we have to remember the attempts to block our stadium on the basis of wildlife. we have a lot of pressures on housing and other development, i'd say some special interests are as important as addressing those interest. more importantly we should have more say than bureaucrats in Brussels.

likewise for agricultural and industrial pollution, there's little to prove that positive restrictions could not be made without the EU. i'd venture we'd generally agree to and implement policies that have regional or global impacts, as demonstrated by our ahead of target CO2 reductions. i'll also point out that EU is not a paragon of virtue, focusing so much on CO2 emissions that they have had negative impacts on other areas such as particulates (cf VW debacle). right now we are proposing to shut down our coal power stations, replacing with imported electricity from Europe, supplied from nuclear and... German coal powered electricity, as they have increased their coal. strategically we absolutely should not restrict exploiting carbon resources on our doorstep, while we are importing from the middle east and elsewhere. by all means have an objective to reduce consumption, but if the required consumption can be satisfied locally that makes a lot of sense.

btw i thank you for the graph earlier, it misses my point a little but not going to dwell on that off topic.

 

[5ways]

Having noted that the EU helps to keep our beaches, rivers, and air clean we can move back to the economic argument. Here's the latest:

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said leaving the EU would be “a huge step into the unknown” , with most of the possible outcomes likely to result in lower GDP growth. Even a run of opinion polls suggesting that voters may back Brexit in the upcoming referendum is likely to cause business uncertainty and prompt companies to hold back on investment decisions, said Oxford Economics. As the Press Association reports, the warning came in the annual Green Budget produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in association with Oxford Economics (OE), which predicted “significant uncertainty” during the two-year negotiation on exit terms which would follow a vote to leave. Speaking at the launch of the Green Budget in London’s Guildhall, OE’s lead UK economist Andrew Goodwin said:

There are a vast range of possible outcomes, but it is very apparent that most of the scenarios in terms of Brexit fall on the downside. Most of them involve worse outcomes in terms of GDP growth than the baseline forecast. The less migration is restricted and the more the government follows a free trade agenda, the less negative those outcomes are.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ng-brexit-calais-jungle-england-politics-live

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

all though your flow charts look the real deal and hold some sort of credibility, the bottom line is you're a tree hugger, sorry that's not going to sort out the mess of the EU but saving £55 million a day might be put to better use.
regards
DR

I'm actually a very pragmatic man Mr Reich. I, like you, am very proud to be British and care very much for our nation. I dislike many things about the EU. But one of the best things about our country is the beautiful natural spaces, I'm lucky to live in such a stunning place as Cornwall, but I love the dales of Derbyshire, the highlands of Scotland and of course the beaches and downland of Sussex. Ultimately I think its sad that we need the EU to protect these places for us because our own government is too greedy, blinkered, selfish or simply in bed with business to do it instead. If I could trust our government, on whichever side of the aisle, to respect and strengthen our environmental laws, I would vote to leave the EU. But I can't, so I won't

 

[alfredmizen]

all though your flow charts look the real deal and hold some sort of credibility, the bottom line is you're a tree hugger, sorry that's not going to sort out the mess of the EU but saving £55 million a day might be put to better use.
regards
DR

To be fair to [MENTION=805]Kalimantan Gull[/MENTION] he is a bit more than a tree hugger das , he is a scientist and he is pretty clued up on this , not sure whether his views on the EU are quite so clued up though !

 

[JC Footy Genius]

....and we would promptly stop protecting our environment if we left? How? Would we suddenly encourage more carbon emissions, start pumping more poisonous waste into our rivers, etc, or just carry on with the environmental protection laws we have at the moment (as, presumably, would the EU countries)?

Quite, I doubt very little would change and going forward we would probably mirror EU environmental policies in the vast majority of situations. However if for whatever reason we decided to diverge from a Europe wide standard it would be UK decision taken by UK politicians who we can hold to account. Not so where policies are pushed through via Qualified majority voting in the EU against the UK position. There seems to be a rather condescending view that we (UK) are incapable of arriving at sensible environmental policies and need the EU to keep us in line. Yet to be in the EU means we surrender full control of our borders and any chance of managing immigration which directly effects our environment.

The biggest impact on the environment I have witnessed over my lifetime has been the relentless expansion of towns and cities encroaching on greenfield sites. In the area of Sussex where I grew up fields and woods where I used to play are now housing estates and towns are gobbling up outlying villages converging on other towns. Obviously time can't stand still but this all happened when net immigration was limited and we had lower population growth.

It is a fact we (England) are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. It is a fact we already have a severe housing shortage. It is a fact we are seeing unprecedented rates of net immigration year in year out. It is a fact that this drives population growth. It is a fact the office for national statistics predicts a population rise of 5 million people in the next 10 years and 10 million over the next 25. All parties claim they are going to increase housebuilding but not at rates that would come close to clearing the backlog and keep up with the ever increasing demand.

It will be interesting to see what this country will look like after accommodating this increase plus all the additional road/rail building and associated infrastructure. Will our 'environment' really benefit from all this plus Increased congestion, increased pollution ... not to mention the numerous other factors including societal cohesion.

Quite a price to pay for having EU regulations and some supposed greater influence in fighting global warming.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

you raise these points as if they are all positive and all dependent on the EU. on SSSIs, are all necessarily worthy? we have to remember the attempts to block our stadium on the basis of wildlife. we have a lot of pressures on housing and other development, i'd say some special interests are as important as addressing those interest. more importantly we should have more say than bureaucrats in Brussels.

likewise for agricultural and industrial pollution, there's little to prove that positive restrictions could not be made without the EU. i'd venture we'd generally agree to and implement policies that have regional or global impacts, as demonstrated by our ahead of target CO2 reductions. i'll also point out that EU is not a paragon of virtue, focusing so much on CO2 emissions that they have had negative impacts on other areas such as particulates (cf VW debacle). right now we are proposing to shut down our coal power stations, replacing with imported electricity from Europe, supplied from nuclear and... German coal powered electricity, as they have increased their coal. strategically we absolutely should not restrict exploiting carbon resources on our doorstep, while we are importing from the middle east and elsewhere. by all means have an objective to reduce consumption, but if the required consumption can be satisfied locally that makes a lot of sense.

btw i thank you for the graph earlier, it misses my point a little but not going to dwell on that off topic.

Look, I'm not saying the EU is perfect, of course not, but I stand by my argument that our current regulations would be weakened out of the EU. Our stadium was an interesting one for me, I'm glad that we went through a rigorous process and we showed that the impacts were negligible, and that efforts were made for mitigation. For me, it was an example that the process worked.

If one government thought an area was important enough to create an SSSI, that should stand. We have enough land without trashing them. But not that many have the additional EU protection anyway, only some. I remember when half of one was cut away for a Boots factory, so unnecessary.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

To be fair to [MENTION=805]Kalimantan Gull[/MENTION] he is a bit more than a tree hugger das , he is a scientist and he is pretty clued up on this , not sure whether his views on the EU are quite so clued up though !

I did praise him on his flow charts but he seems to have cross wires somewhere down the line as you say
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I'm actually a very pragmatic man Mr Reich. I, like you, am very proud to be British and care very much for our nation. I dislike many things about the EU. But one of the best things about our country is the beautiful natural spaces, I'm lucky to live in such a stunning place as Cornwall, but I love the dales of Derbyshire, the highlands of Scotland and of course the beaches and downland of Sussex. Ultimately I think its sad that we need the EU to protect these places for us because our own government is too greedy, blinkered, selfish or simply in bed with business to do it instead. If I could trust our government, on whichever side of the aisle, to respect and strengthen our environmental laws, I would vote to leave the EU. But I can't, so I won't

i've been to Cornwall and the Derbyshire peak district , what are Defra and the EA doing in these areas
regards
DR

 

[brighton fella]

I'm actually a very pragmatic man Mr Reich. I, like you, am very proud to be British and care very much for our nation. I dislike many things about the EU. But one of the best things about our country is the beautiful natural spaces, I'm lucky to live in such a stunning place as Cornwall, but I love the dales of Derbyshire, the highlands of Scotland and of course the beaches and downland of Sussex. Ultimately I think its sad that we need the EU to protect these places for us because our own government is too greedy, blinkered, selfish or simply in bed with business to do it instead. If I could trust our government, on whichever side of the aisle, to respect and strengthen our environmental laws, I would vote to leave the EU. But I can't, so I won't

am i hearing this right you can not trust our government on certain issues yet you are willing to put your trust in to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats from brussels who frankly could not give a f*ck about britain,

at least by coming out of the EU you will have the choice every 5 year of replacing your government if at any time it f*cks up, if you remain in you will have absolutely no say at all.

personally i would rather live in a democratic country where the people have the right to choose and replace their own government , that is why i shall be voting to pull out of this pathetic hole, besides my grandfather never put his life on the line for some unelected foreign dictator to take control of this countries affairs where britain shamefully has to go begging bowl in hand for any chance of a concession.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

am i hearing this right you can not trust our government on certain issues yet you are willing to put your trust in to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats from brussels who frankly could not give a f*ck about britain,

at least by coming out of the EU you will have the choice every 5 year of replacing your government if at any time it f*cks up, if you remain in you will have absolutely no say at all.

personally i would rather live in a democratic country where the people have the right to choose and replace their own government , that is why i shall be voting to pull out of this pathetic hole, besides my grandfather never put his life on the line for some unelected foreign dictator to take control of this countries affairs where britain shamefully has to go begging bowl in hand for any chance of a concession.

spot on , CORNWALL, PEAK DISTRICT, HIGHLANDS............ multi cultural Britain at it's best
regards
DR

 

[brighton fella]

spot on , CORNWALL, PEAK DISTRICT, HIGHLANDS............ multi cultural Britain at it's best
regards
DR

exactly.

 

[cunning fergus]

Totally agree. The likes of Nigel Lawson make me sick, he will dead in under a decade. Add to that a band of Victor Meldrew UKIP's.

A strong EU is what is needed to tackle global challenges.

You should consider why its the older generation is the demographic that is overwelmingly anti-EU?

That was the demographic that had the vote to join..............and now they know different. My uncle is a case in point, he voted to join in the 70s and as a young man actively campaigned in the join campaign. He was not a party political animal but was interested in business working his way up the managment ladder for the Danish Bacon Company.

He can recall trying to persuade older (more cycnical) voters who wanted to stay outside the EEC, and how generally their view was that joining the EEC would be the thin end of the wedge. The politicians then were not to be trusted as ultimately the UK would lose its political independence becoming even more embrolied in European problems.

His view is now unequivocally to vote out, because the project has not worked, its now causing the problems we are dealing with, like creating the euro and not managing it correctly.

Yet despite the evidence on the scale of the disaster some people like you want to give the EU more power so it can be "stronger".

He would call you a mad fool, but will probably be dead in a decade you will be glad to hear.

 

[melias shoes]

Climate deniers really are the most obtuse people. The scientific consensus on man-man climate change is as conclusive as the link between smoking and lung cancer.

If they say so.

 

[Soulman]

if Britain were to leave the European Union, France would be bound by the Dublin Regulation which prioritises the responsibility for asylum applications on the European country of entry.

Dublin II makes it clear: “only one Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application” and with Britain out of the European Union, it would not have to answer to rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights, nor would it necessarily, as a non-member state, have to honour Dublin at all. France however, would still have to implement the deal.

The legislation states: “Where the asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State, that Member State will be responsible for examining the asylum application. This responsibility ceases 12 months after the date on which the border has been illegally crossed.

“When the asylum seeker has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging his/her asylum application, that Member State becomes responsible for examining the application. Where the applicant has been living for a period of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he/she lived most recently shall be responsible for examining the application.”

Mr. Cameron’s threats, especially to the British border town of Folkestone, are unlikely to be well received.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...would-lead-to-calais-jungle-camps-in-england/

 

[brighton fella]

this debate should be about one thing , either you want britain to become a democratic country once again or simply be ruled by a bunch of communist unelected bureaucrats who wish to expand and strip you from your rights..

your choice it's either democracy or communism. i know whats the safer one out of the two..

 

[BadFish]

You are not smart enough to tell what is trolling and what isn't. Thats not trolling. You are trolling.

Low quality troll or low quality poster, the net result is the same. You have little of worth to offer as your contributions to this thread demonstrate.

 

[pastafarian]

am i hearing this right you can not trust our government on certain issues yet you are willing to put your trust in to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats from brussels who frankly could not give a f*ck about britain,

at least by coming out of the EU you will have the choice every 5 year of replacing your government if at any time it f*cks up, if you remain in you will have absolutely no say at all.

personally i would rather live in a democratic country where the people have the right to choose and replace their own government , that is why i shall be voting to pull out of this pathetic hole, besides my grandfather never put his life on the line for some unelected foreign dictator to take control of this countries affairs where britain shamefully has to go begging bowl in hand for any chance of a concession.

This is the trump card that wins it every time for me.

People can talk about the economy,immigration,climate change,treaty change and all the uncertainties surrounding an exit,and there are genuine uncertainties.
But sovereignty and accountability to me are paramount.
The EU is heading in one direction only,ever closer undemocratic union.

Time to jump off the bus now before its too late. An EU exit now is the gift of democracy to generations of future Brits.

 

[BadFish]

This is the trump card that wins it every time for me.

People can talk about the economy,immigration,climate change,treaty change and all the uncertainties surrounding an exit,and there are genuine uncertainties.
But sovereignty and accountability to me are paramount.
The EU is heading in one direction only,ever closer undemocratic union.

Time to jump off the bus now before its too late. An EU exit now is the gift of democracy to generations of future Brits.

You are spot on about the undemocratic nature of the EU.

Although it seems to me that there is another option of keeping the positive things about the union and sorting out the problems. Is it too late for that? Quite possibly.

 

[BadFish]

You are spot on about the undemocratic nature of the EU.

Although it seems to me that there is another option of keeping the positive things about the union and sorting out the problems. Is it too late for that? Quite possibly.

...

 

[brighton fella]

This is the trump card that wins it every time for me.

People can talk about the economy,immigration,climate change,treaty change and all the uncertainties surrounding an exit,and there are genuine uncertainties.
But sovereignty and accountability to me are paramount.
The EU is heading in one direction only,ever closer undemocratic union.

Time to jump off the bus now before its too late. An EU exit now is the gift of democracy to generations of future Brits.

correct we owe it to our kids and grandchildren otherwise our forefathers fought 2 world wars in vein, freedom over anything the EU has to offer any day,

meanwhile some on here value a communist lifestyle over anything else putting first what benefits them before the freedom of their kids. it boils down to priorities..