With a looming divorce from a some times rocky, ill communicative polygamous marriage, the UK is bracing - for want of a better word - for the geopolitical shift of this generation. There are so many holes this far out from the outcome that even on the most optimistic sides of punditry, the situation remains seemingly bleak. Across the great divides of UK politics, conversation on BREXIT and its modern significance has been steaming from bar stools at home and abroad. What will happen? Would it actually happen?
It’s sobering to think about the logistics of what is to come from such ‘no going back’ precariousness. But as the feathers of bureaucratic uncertainty float their way back to Houses of Westminster where they shall now remain, one of the bigger questions has been just how exactly the UK plans to withdraw itself from the numerous environmental directives which have held sovereignty over the expanding sectors under the guise of ‘environment’ since European inception.
Taking a seat at any happy hour establishment across the UK one might expect to hear the revolving door speculative catalysts for the leave vote but also as more British real ales are supped, where we might identify some hope. Two issues in earshot could well be fisheries - a pillar of the Leave campaign stump - and the more recently publicized old English woe, air pollution. Two disparate issues but with some common ground in influence, conversation and eventually some tangible consequences.
It is no secret that the fisheries industry voted heavily to leave the EU In fact the voice was so loud and seemingly held so much gravitas that one could easily be forgiven for thinking that the actual fishermen industry held a greater economic share than UK private detectives. The centrepiece at the heart of the discord is the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, which has received negative reviews almost since its inception and even led to some scientists quashing it as a biological, economical, legal and political failure. It has been brandished as a significant proponent of fishing village struggles and to the mismanagement of UK resources - in particular perceived stringent quotas - resulting in reduced economic yields for once ‘prosperous’ regions. This prosperity is debatable, but we have all borne witness to the power nostalgia can wield across the political spectrum over past two years. In reality, real declines of fish stocks occurred prior to the ratification of the Common Fisheries Policy, and it took perhaps - in some fisheries - overly conservative catch limits to bring about a reversal of decline and a revival of target species. Pointing to the CFP as the culprit in the lacklustre economics of UK fisheries is like fingering out the chef for warm beer.
The second issue - air pollution - has become a hot topic since reports released showed many UK urban centres well above preordained EU directive levels. London has long been a city of questionable air quality reaching back to the ‘great smog’ of 1952 which subsequently brought about the Clean Air Act. (1956) which banned domestic coal burning heat. Contemporary evidence still suggests there is a problem. 11,940 premature deaths in 2013 were in some way attributed to elevated levels of nitrogen dioxide in urban and outdoor areas and today, London is the hotspot across Europe for poor urban air pollution, with annual mean levels of nitrogen dioxide more than double that stipulated by the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive (AAQD). The AAQD asks each of the member states to reduce emissions and maintain levels determined from Brussels, however since 2010 the UK has failed to fully comply. London in the near future shows no sign of vast improvements to air quality and is expected to continue to observe levels well above those stated in the directive. Numerous ideas for reducing the levels of urban centre air pollution have been called for by various non-governmental organisations. Friends of the Earth, who are committed to preparing the UK environment for withdrawal from the EU are calling for ‘clean air zones’ in all areas that have failing NO2 limits; a governmental commitment to phasing out of diesel - beginning with vehicle taxes that discourage diesel car use; further alternatives to driving and a carefully designed vehicle scrappage scheme. Perhaps London can take heed the positive steps taken in some of Scotland’s main centres. In April 2016 the Scottish Government became the first country in Europe to adopt World Health Organisation recommended guideline values parts per million of NOx.
So what is the UK faced with? The ambiguity surrounding who will uphold the ‘watchdog’ post after BREXIT remains to be properly answered. DEFRA is a well oiled political machine, but with a minister from lifetime political stock and with a track record of attempting to shoot down climate change from classroom discussion it could be said that there is need for a more influence from outside the partisan agenda. Directives from Brussels naturally fall into the hands of the UK government, but there is room to keep the pressure on. Will the government simply lax on the current air quality thresholds given the apparent status quo of some UK cities’ beyond current levels? Will overly generous fishing quotas be outlaid to fishers in light of their unwavering support for BREXIT and their momentum gathering voices that still remain to be heard amid negotiations, thus leaving the door once again ajar for potential overfishing? Hitherto the UK remains in the EU, responsibility is in the hands of independent bodies outside the government to take responsibility for the environment they want to live in. There is a misconception in the UK of it being a haven for environmental management prior to EU membership, a belief that appeared in some rhetoric during the campaign and representative again of nostalgic power. In actual fact the UK was colloquially known as the ‘dirty man’ of Europe. There is an opportunity to turn the other leaf and move forward to a different bureaucracy with different laws. Amongst the catalysts for leaving the EU body were the oceans of paper beneath each and every piece of EU legislation. The UK runs the risk of bringing that back home, and after all the wax has sealed, reaching a ‘what was the point’ moment. Surely the time is now to ensure that there is independant, pragmatic and streamlined practice put in place to ensure environmental integrity across the board, not just for these issues of fisheries and air quality.
