Is Brussels imposing its will in the UK? Is it really the enemy described by the Brexiters? Here are a few clarifying ideas:
Outside the EU the British government might find it hard to repeat the same environmental or labour regulations that it had when it was a full member. Mary Creagh, chair of the environmental audit committee, worked on a report of the effects for the UK on leaving the EU which concluded that the Brexit would threaten the UK’s air and water quality, biodiversity and the countryside. In fact there could be an influx of pesticides, microbeads, GMOs and the consolidation of smaller country farms into big units which would have a negative effect on the countryside, the report suggests.
According to Tony Juniper, President of the Wildlife Trust, 85% of British environmental laws come from Brussels. He sees EU environmental legislation not as a burden on business, but rather as a source of innovation. In the same way, a report by Friends of the Earth highlights not only that thanks to European legislation, the UK has a cleaner environment and a healthier population, but that environmental issues are a progressive source of technological innovation for British companies.
There are two possible scenarios the UK might face if the exit option wins this month.
The first would be exit from the EU and the entrance to the European Economic Area (EEA) or the EFTA. If the UK remains in the EEA it would be able to modify environmental rules which are not covered by it. However it would lose its capacity to influence EU regulations in other policy areas, which British businesses would still have to follow in order to be able to export their products to Europe. Despite being outside of the EU, there are international and regional agreements the UK has to follow in issues like transboundary air and atmospheric pollution, chemicals regulation and the dumping of hazardous waste.
Issues such as bathing water, habitats and birds, and some aspects of climate legislation would continue to apply. Others, like the Common Fishery Policy (CFP) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) wouldn’t, so the UK would have to negotiate trade and investment agreements with non EU countries.
Regarding fishing, Brexit could be an advantage, as the CFP has historically been unsustainable. Though, Cameron recently said that the value of the UK’s fishing industry has gone up during the past 5 years.
Concerning the CAP, the recovery of the UK’s agricultural policy wouldn’t necessarily benefit the environment. Friends of the Earth highlight the worry that Britain could deregulate products which have been banned by the EU, such as genetic modified organisms (GMO) or pesticides.
The second possible scenario is complete exit from the EU, so European regulations would be invalid and the UK would be free to rewrite or adapt them. Many instruments such as the ones to tackle global environmental problems have been designed according to international agreements, so they would remain. But as one recent piece of research points out, EU environmental regulations tend to provide higher standards than the international ones. So a complete exit might entail the risk of less rigorous standards.
Ed Davey, former Secretary of State, Energy & Climate Change, has said that if the UK were to leave, environmental protections would be at risk of being disregarded by the government, bringing lack of confidence and stability to the UK. Hence, “years of uncertainty” could negatively affect investment.
Therefore in an exit scenario, the UK might have to comply with European regulations without being able to influence them. So Brexit might mean escaping EU regulations, but there is a reasonable chance it won’t.
Teresa is an intern at Corporate Citizenship. Her placement is funded by the Basque Government.