DOCSLIB.ORG

New Labour—New Europe?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Labour—New Europe? Hughes & Smith 10/12/97 2:02 pm Page 93 New Labour—new Europe? KIRSTY HUGHES & EDWARD SMITH Within two weeks of the British general election, the new Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, issued a foreign policy mission statement which included the aim of making the UK a ‘leading player in a Europe of indepen- dent nation states’. Tony Blair, in his first major European speech as British Prime Minister, called for the creation of a ‘people’s Europe’ and announced that the British government ‘shares the goal of a constructive partnership of nations in Europe’. A few weeks later the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, called for Britain to be ‘leading in Europe’ and rejected ‘both the federal way forward and the regulatory way ahead’; and in November, the point was reiterated by the Prime Minister, stating that ‘we must end the isolation of the last twenty years and be a leading partner in Europe’. These statements have a familiar ring. John Major also famously called for Britain to be ‘at the heart of Europe’. The key question being asked of Britain’s approach to Europe under its first Labour government for a generation is whether this is new Labour, new Europe or new Labour, old Britain.The determination of the government to be a leading player combined with a rather typical British unease with supra- national structures (though not the outright hostility of the Conservatives) rais- es again the question of whether Britain will lead in a direction that no one else wants to take or whether it can promote and gain support for a new approach to the EU. As yet, the answer to this key question is unclear. Ruling out the prospect of Britain becoming a strong proponent of ever closer union, there remain three potential routes down which Labour may take Britain in Europe—the choice among which will also depend on the decisions, preferences and views of Mission statement for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), May . Speech by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon.Tony Blair MP,to the Party of European Socialists Congress, Malmö, June . Speech by the Rt Hon. Gordon Brown MP,Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Royal Institute of International Affairs,‘Britain leading in Europe’, July . Speech by the Prime Minister,The Rt Hon.Tony Blair MP,at the Lord Mayor’s banquet, London, Guildhall,‘The principles of a modern British foreign policy’, November . The Rt Hon. John Major MP,former prime minister,‘The evolution of Europe’, Conservative Party News, March . International Affairs , () – Hughes & Smith 10/12/97 2:02 pm Page 94 Kirsty Hughes & Edward Smith Britain’s European partners. First, Britain could act on the rhetoric of the gov- ernment and indeed play a leading part in promoting a new political vision and role for the EU in the twenty-first century, drawing on the lessons, successes and strengths of its domestic position. Second, it could be a constructive but pragmatic European player, offering elements of new thinking and positive ideas but without an overall vision and without being a dominant player.There are already signs of this approach.Third, Britain could—without replicating the bitter divisions of the preceding Conservative government—be a side player in the EU, left behind as Europe develops in directions it cannot support.There is some evidence in support of each of these three routes, but so far the second is the most appropriate characterization. In this article, we assess the main elements of Britain’s European policy under the Labour government, how it compares with earlier British approaches and how it relates to the challenges Europe faces. A change of approach? In comparison to the previous administration, the current British government has adopted a new, positive tone in the EU.The importance of the change in both tone and behaviour should not be underestimated.The deep splits in the Conservative Party over Europe—splits that went to the heart of the cabinet— left Britain isolated in the EU, with its influence much reduced even in areas where it had common policy goals with its European partners.The fiasco over ‘mad cow disease’ in , and then Britain’s threat to veto all non-essential EU business in order to get the export ban on British beef lifted, must rank as one of the most damaging British foreign policy episodes in recent history. The obstructive behaviour of the Major government was an important factor lead- ing to calls for more flexibility in policy-making in the EU; the other member states did not want future development of the EU held back by a negative, non- cooperative Britain. The election of the new Labour government was generally welcomed in the rest of the EU,enabling a swift conclusion to the intergovernmental conference and offering the likelihood of more positive, constructive and reasonable behaviour.The professional election campaign, Labour’s huge majority in the new parliament and the dynamism of the early months of the incoming gov- ernment were both impressive and a cause of envy for many continental politi- cians on left and right alike. Britain also joined the ranks of the majority of EU member states which have centre or centre-left governments. However, given the range of political approaches among these broadly defined social democra- tic parties, this itself may be cause for conflict as much as for consensus. Despite pressure for change in the various manifestations of the continental social mar- ket model, there remain many differences between this model as a whole and the Anglo-Saxon economic approach. This has naturally led to caution over how Blair’s attempt to marry the two models—the so-called ‘third way’— Hughes & Smith 10/12/97 2:02 pm Page 95 New Labour—new Europe? differs from the economic policies and social inequalities associated with Thatcherism. The new government does differ from its predecessor in its overall approach to the EU. Labour is not plagued by serious splits on Europe: there is a broad consensus around the view that Britain should have a major role in the EU. There are dissenters on the single currency but, as discussed further below,these doubts are principally on economic rather than national sovereignty grounds. The three leading figures in the cabinet—Blair, Brown and Cook—all recog- nize that Britain increases its global status and influence by being a serious, influential EU player. At the same time, both Cook’s mission statement and Blair’s first major foreign policy statement have made it clear they still see Britain as a global player, particularly given its position as a permanent mem- ber of the UN Security Council, and its role in other bodies including the Commonwealth and the G.There is, therefore, a combination here of a mod- ern approach, recognizing the importance for a medium-sized country like Britain of working with and through the EU, with a more traditional empha- sis on Britain’s independent global role. It will be important to observe how the balance or tension between these two emphases develops. The new British government is not an uncritical supporter of all of the cur- rent EU structures and policies.The Prime Minister made this clear in his key Malmö speech to the Party of European Socialists Congress, where he criti- cized both old left and old right approaches, calling for a ‘third way’ in eco- nomic and social policy and criticizing EU institutions for being ‘out of touch, out of date, not responsive to the people’s needs’ Labour’s European rhetoric emphasizes the need to renew and redefine Europe, to create a ‘people’s Europe’, tackling the dominant challenge of European unemployment and making the EU relevant to European publics. Reducing levels of unemploy- ment and remedying the democratic deficit are aims that will be generally supported across the EU, but Labour’s sometimes critical language and its emphasis on leading, on being a dominant player—and Cook’s ill-advised talk of triangles—have not been altogether welcomed. Concerns that Britain may seek to form a directoire of large EU states or adopt a balance of power approach have been fuelled by Labour rhetoric and signal an initial naiveté in the new government’s approach. And while the aims of creating employment and making the EU relevant are uncontroversial, differences of outlook surface in the specifics of the policy approaches. Britain’s overall approach to its six-month presidency of the EU, starting in January , is not likely to cause much dissension.The government has said its priorities during this period will be jobs, crime and the environment. It has promised to work to ensure successful moves towards the single currency, to give a ‘flying start’ to enlargement negotiations and to work to complete the single market.The Foreign Secretary has also announced that Britain will aim FCO Mission Statement, May . Blair,‘The principles of a modern British foreign policy’. Blair, speech Malmö, June . Hughes & Smith 10/12/97 2:02 pm Page 96 Kirsty Hughes & Edward Smith for the EU to coordinate its foreign policy more effectively in order to give Europe ‘more clout’ in the world. The impression given is one of a positive, constructive British government engaging with EU concerns and trying to inject new approaches and priorities into the discussion. However, once we consider both the content of specific policies and the extent to which the gov- ernment has an overall conception of the political role or purpose of the EU, a less clear-cut picture emerges. Employment as top priority While there is consensus across the EU that unemployment must be addressed, there is less agreement on specific policy approaches to the problem and the appropriate level for policy action.The Amsterdam treaty included for the first time an employment chapter, but there was disagreement over its contents and the types of policy approach to which it should refer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lewis Minkin and the Party–Unions Link
    ITLP_C11.QXD 18/8/03 10:02 am Page 166 11 Lewis Minkin and the party–unions link Eric Shaw ‘For over 80 years’, Minkin declares in his magisterial survey The Contentious Alliance (1991: xii), the Labour Party–trade unions link ‘has shaped the structure and, in various ways, the character of the British Left’.His core proposition can be encapsulated simply: trade union ‘restraint has been the central characteristic’ of the link (1991: 26). This constitutes a frontal challenge to received wisdom – end- lessly repeated, recycled and amplified by Britain’s media – that, until the ‘mod- ernisation’ of the party, initiated by Neil Kinnock and accelerated by Tony Blair, the unions ran the party. So ingrained is this wisdom in British political culture that no discussion of party–unions relations in the media can endure for long without some reference to the days when ‘the union barons controlled the party’.This view, Minkin holds, is a gross over-simplification and, to a degree, downright mislead- ing. The relationship is infinitely more subtle and complex, and far more balanced than the conventional view allows. The task Minkin sets himself in The Contentious Alliance is twofold: on the one hand to explain why and how he reached that con- clusion; and, on the other – the core of the book – to lay bare the inner dynamics of the party–unions connection. What is most distinctive and enduring about Minkin’s work? In what ways has it most contributed to our understanding of the labour movement? Does it still offer insights for scholars of Labour politics? In the first section of this paper, I examine how Minkin contests the premisses underpinning the orthodox thesis of trade union ‘baronial power’; in the second, I analyse the ‘sociological’frame of ref- erence he devised as an analytical tool to uncover the roots and essential proper- ties of the party–unions connection; in the third section, I address the question of the relevance of Minkin today.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dynamic and Democratic Eu Or Muddling Through Again? Assessing the Eu’S Draft Constitution
    EUROPEAN EPIN POLICY INSTITUTE NETWORK EPIN WORKING PAPER NO. 8 JULY 2003 A DYNAMIC AND DEMOCRATIC EU OR MUDDLING THROUGH AGAIN? ASSESSING THE EU’S DRAFT CONSTITUTION KIRSTY HUGHES This series of Working Papers is published by the European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN). Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the author in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which she is associated. ISBN 92-9079-450-X Available for free downloading from the CEPS website (http://www.ceps.be) Copyright 2003, Kirsty Hughes CEPS gratefully acknowledges financial support received for EPIN from the Prince Programme of the European Commission. Place du Congrès 1 ▪ B-1000 Brussels ▪ Tel: (32.2) 229.39.11 ▪ Fax: (32.2) 219.41.51 ▪ VAT: BE 424.123.986 e-mail: [email protected] • website: at www.epin.orghttp://www.ceps.be A DYNAMIC AND DEMOCRATIC EU OR MUDDLING THROUGH AGAIN? ASSESSING THE EU’S DRAFT CONSTITUTION EPIN WORKING PAPER NO. 8/JULY 2003 * KIRSTY HUGHES Introduction The draft Constitution is on the table. Attention is moving towards the traditional intergovernmental game that will be played out at the intergovernmental conference (IGC) during autumn 2003 – and quite possibly into early 2004 (despite the intentions of the Italian presidency). Much of the structure and the detailed substance of the draft treaty will stay but the IGC will be far from a rubber-stamp exercise. Moreover, despite the pessimists’ (or perhaps realists’) view that the IGC will only make the draft Constitution worse, the governments do have an opportunity to improve and clarify many areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Reshaping Europe: Visions for the Future
    Reshaping Europe Visions for the future Nick Butler, Philip Dodd, Stephanie Flanders, Timothy Garton Ash and Kirsty Hughes Edited by Charles Grant iv ABOUT THE AUTHORS Nick Butler is Group Policy Adviser at BP and chairs the management committee of the Centre for European Reform. Philip Dodd edits Sight and Sound, the magazine of the British Film Institute. He is also the author of “Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880-1920”. Stephanie Flanders is a columnist and leader-writer on the Financial Times. She previously taught at Harvard University’s Department of Goverment and at its Kennedy School. Timothy Garton Ash is a fellow of St Antony’s College, Oxford. His books include “The Polish Revolution” and “In Europe’s name: Germany and the Divided Continent”. Charles Grant is defence editor of The Economist. He is also the author of “Delors: Inside the house that Jacques built”. Kirsty Hughes is head of the European Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. She previously worked for the Policy Studies Institute. # The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the CER or of its trustees. v Contents About the authors iv Introduction—Nick Butler 1 The Europe we need—Timothy Garton Ash 4 Resetting Europe’s priorities—Stephanie Flanders 9 In defence of Brussels—Charles Grant 17 Europe’s flexible future—Kirsty Hughes 29 The quest for a European identity—Philip Dodd 36 vi 1 Introduction Nick Butler This pamphlet, and its publisher, the Centre for European Reform, are the fruit of what could legitimately be called Generation E—individuals born since 1950 who take it for granted that when they talk about politics, culture, economics or security, Europe is their natural frame of reference.
    [Show full text]
  • One Nation: Power, Hope, Community
    one nation power hope community power hope community Ed Miliband has set out his vision of One Nation: a country where everyone has a stake, prosperity is fairly shared, and we make a common life together. A group of Labour MPs, elected in 2010 and after, describe what this politics of national renewal means to them. It begins in the everyday life of work, family and local place. It is about the importance of having a sense of belonging and community, and sharing power and responsibility with people. It means reforming the state and the market in order to rebuild the economy, share power hope community prosperity, and end the living standards crisis. And it means doing politics in a different way: bottom up not top down, organising not managing. A new generation is changing Labour to change the country. Edited by Owen Smith and Rachael Reeves Contributors: Shabana Mahmood Rushanara Ali Catherine McKinnell Kate Green Gloria De Piero Lilian Greenwood Steve Reed Tristram Hunt Rachel Reeves Dan Jarvis Owen Smith Edited by Owen Smith and Rachel Reeves 9 781909 831001 1 ONE NATION power hope community Edited by Owen Smith & Rachel Reeves London 2013 3 First published 2013 Collection © the editors 2013 Individual articles © the author The authors have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1998 to be identified as authors of this work. All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • New Labour, Globalization, and the Competition State" by Philip G
    Centerfor European Studies Working Paper Series #70 New Labour, Globalization, and the Competition State" by Philip G. Cemy** Mark Evans" Department of Politics Department of Politics University of Leeds University of York Leeds LS2 9JT, UK York YOlO SDD, U.K Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] • Will also be published in Econonry andSocitD' - We would like to thank the Nuffield Foundation, the Center for European Studies, Harvard University,and the Max-Planck-Institut fur Gesellschaftsforshung, Cologne, for their support during the writing of this paper. Abstract The concept of the Competition State differs from the "Post-Fordist State" of Regulation Theory, which asserts that the contemporary restructuring of the state is aimed at maintaining its generic function of stabilizing the national polity and promoting the domestic economy in the public interest In contrast, the Competition State focuses on disempowering the state from within with regard to a range of key tasks, roles, and activities, in the face of processes of globalization . The state does not merely adapt to exogenous structural constraints; in addition, domestic political actors take a proactive and preemptive lead in this process through both policy entrepreneurship and the rearticulation of domestic political and social coalitions, on both right and left, as alternatives are incrementally eroded. State intervention itself is aimed at not only adjusting to but also sustaining, promoting, and expanding an open global economy in order to capture its perceived
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle for Power in Europe Will the Convention Get It Right?
    EPIN EUROPEAN POLICY INSTITUTE NETWORK EPIN WORKING PAPER NO. 4 FEBRUARY 2003 THE BATTLE FOR POWER IN EUROPE WILL THE CONVENTION GET IT RIGHT? KIRSTY HUGHES This is the fourth in a new series of Working Papers published by the European Policy Institutes Network. Kirsty Hughes is a senior research fellow at CEPS. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the author in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which she is associated. ISBN 92-9079-419-4 Available for free downloading from the CEPS website (http://www.ceps.be) © Copyright 2003, Kirsty Hughes CEPS gratefully acknowledges financial support received for EPIN from the Prince Programme of the European Commission. Place du Congrès 1 ▪ B-1000 Brussels ▪ Tel: (32.2) 229.39.11 ▪ Fax: (32.2) 219.41.51 ▪ VAT: BE 424.123.986 e-mail: [email protected] • website: at www.epin.orghttp://www.ceps.be THE BATTLE FOR POWER IN EUROPE WILL THE CONVENTION GET IT RIGHT? EPIN WORKING PAPER NO. 4/FEBRUARY 2003 KIRSTY HUGHES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As it enters the final phase of its work, the jury is still out as to how well – or whether – the Convention will answer the three big Laeken challenges: to bring the EU closer to the European public; to create an effective political structure and operation for the enlarged EU; and to give the EU a genuine global role. The Convention has made considerable achievements in its work already and has developed a strong, if complex, political dynamic. But it is the big institutional decisions which will impact most strongly on both efficiency and democracy in the enlarged EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour's Next Majority Means Winning Over Conservative Voters but They Are Not Likely to Be the Dominant Source of The
    LABOUR’S NEXT MAJORITY THE 40% STRATEGY Marcus Roberts LABOUR’S The 40% There will be voters who go to the polls on 6th May 2015 who weren’t alive strategy when Tony and Cherie Blair posed outside 10 Downing Street on 1st May NEXT 1997. They will have no memory of an event which is a moment of history as distant from them as Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 election victory was for the voters of 1997. If Ed Miliband seeks to emulate what Blair did in 1997, he too must build his own political majority for the era in which he seeks to govern. MAJORITY This report sets out a plausible strategy for Labour’s next majority, one that is secured through winning 40 per cent of the popular vote in May 2015, despite the challenges of a fragmenting electorate. It also challenges the Marcus Roberts party at all levels to recognise that the 40 per cent strategy for a clear majority in 2015 will require a different winning formula to that which served New Labour so well a generation ago, but which is past its sell-by date in a different political and economic era. A FABIAN REPORT ISBN 978 0 7163 7004 8 ABOUT THE FABIAN SOCIETY The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think tank. Since 1884 the society has played a central role in developing political ideas and public policy on the left. It aims to promote greater equality of wealth, power and opportunity; the value of collective public action; a vibrant, tolerant and accountable democracy; citizenship, liberty and human rights; sustainable development; and multilateral international cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • That Was the New Labour That Wasn't
    That was the New Labour that wasn’t The New Labour we got was different from the New Labour that might have been, had the reform agenda associated with stakeholding and pluralism in the early- 1990s been fully realised. Stuart White and Martin O’Neill investigate the road not taken and what it means for ‘one nation’ Labour Stuart White is a lecturer in Politics at Oxford University, specialising in political theory, and blogs at openDemocracy Martin O’Neill is Senior Lecturer in Moral & Political Philosophy in the Department of Politics at the University of York 14 / Fabian Review Essay © Kenn Goodall / bykenn.com © Kenn Goodall / bykenn.com ABOUR CURRENTLY FACES a period of challenging competitiveness in manufacturing had been undermined redefinition. New Labour is emphatically over and historically by the short-termism of the City, making for L done. But as New Labour recedes into the past, an excessively high cost of capital and consequent un- it is perhaps helpful and timely to consider what New derinvestment. German capitalism, he argued, offered an Labour might have been. It is possible to speak of a ‘New alternative model based on long-term, ‘patient’ industrial Labour That Wasn’t’: a philosophical perspective and banking. It also illustrated the benefits of structures of gov- political project which provided important context for the ernance of the firm that incorporate not only long-term rise of New Labour, and which in some ways shaped it, but investors but also labour as long-term partners – ‘stake- which New Labour also in important aspects defined itself holders’ - in enterprise management.
    [Show full text]
  • LSE Brexit: Does Scotland Really Want to Stay in the Single Market Without a Say in the Rules? Page 1 of 3
    LSE Brexit: Does Scotland really want to stay in the single market without a say in the rules? Page 1 of 3 Does Scotland really want to stay in the single market without a say in the rules? The Scottish government has made a strong case for staying in the single market and the customs union, writes Kirsty Hughes (Scottish Centre on European Relations). It contrasts with the lack of detail from either the UK government or the Opposition – though glosses over the democratic implications of leaving the UK with no say in the running of the single market. But with public opinion in Scotland decisively in favour of Remain, it gives Nicola Sturgeon plenty of manoeuvre if she decides to call for a second independence referendum after the details of Britain’s trade deal emerge. The Scottish government’s new paper on Brexit choices – ‘Scotland’s Place in Europe: People, Jobs and Investment’ – makes an important contribution to the UK political debate. It argues that, if the UK is not to follow the best option of staying in the European Union, it should stay in the EU’s single market and in a customs union with the EU. But what this in-depth 54 page paper does not do is either directly make a case for halting Brexit nor for holding a second independence referendum. The detailed economic analysis in the report shows that a ‘soft’ Brexit of staying in the EU’s single market and customs union is significantly better than a free trade agreement with the EU, let alone simply trading on WTO rules.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Recapturing Labour's Traditions? History, Nostalgia and the Re-Writing
    Recapturing Labour’s Traditions? History, nostalgia and the re-writing of Clause IV Dr Emily Robinson University of Nottingham The making of New Labour has received a great deal of critical attention, much of which has inevitably focused on the way in which it placed itself in relation to past and future, its inheritances and its iconoclasm.1 Nick Randall is right to note that students of New Labour have been particularly interested in ‘questions of temporality’ because ‘New Labour so boldly advanced a claim to disrupt historical continuity’.2 But it is not only academics who have contributed to this analysis. Many of the key figures associated with New Labour have also had their say. The New Labour project was not just about ‘making history’ in terms of its practical actions; the writing up of that history seems to have been just as important. As early as 1995 Peter Mandelson and Roger Liddle were preparing a key text designed ‘to enable everyone to understand better why Labour changed and what it has changed into’.3 This was followed in 1999 by Phillip Gould’s analysis of The Unfinished Revolution: How the Modernisers Saved the Labour Party, which motivated Dianne Hayter to begin a PhD in order to counteract the emerging consensus that the modernisation process began with the appointment of Gould and Mandelson in 1983. The result of this study was published in 2005 under the title Fightback! Labour’s Traditional Right in the 1970s and 1980s and made the case for a much longer process of modernisation, strongly tied to the trade unions.
    [Show full text]
  • British Politics and Policy at LSE: How Did New Labour Become 'Neoliberal'? Ed Miliband's Efforts to Break with the Party
    British Politics and Policy at LSE: How did New Labour become ‘neoliberal’? Ed Miliband’s efforts to break with the party’s past Page 1 of 2 How did New Labour become ‘neoliberal’? Ed Miliband’s efforts to break with the party’s past As soon as Gordon Brown left office, Labour began to critique its own legacy in government. Glen O’Hara explains the impact of Ed Miliband’s criticism of his predecessors, and the long-term effects of that approach. It’s impossible to begin any assessment of Labour’s last period in office without reference to the idea of ‘neoliberalism’. In many ways that critique is exaggerated, though it contains elements of truth. The state intervened more in economic and social life; the public sphere was better funded; governments’ focus drew ever tighter on liberating children and the elderly (in particular) from poverty. Even so, many of the techniques which Labour used to deliver better public services drew on practices – or investment – from the private sector. Their incrementalist political language, and the way it imagined a cautious electorate selecting between teams of managers delivering ‘results’, often gave the impression that the Party was much more conservative than it really was. It is little wonder that critiques of the economic settlement we have known since the mid-1970s have attached themselves to New Labour just as they have the Conservatives. But the process by which New Labour came to be seen as ‘neoliberal’ are as rooted in the vagaries of politics as they are down to the reality of policymaking between 1997 and 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Written Submission from Dr Annalisa Savaresi As Numerous Reports and Experts Have Pointed out Already, Brexit Is Likely To
    Written submission from Dr Annalisa Savaresi As numerous reports and experts have pointed out already, Brexit is likely to have several implications for environmental law and governance in the UK1 and Scotland.2 The nature of these implications largely depends on the mode of Brexit and will vary between areas of environmental governance. This note provides some early reflections on what these implications may be, drawing on examples from selected areas of environmental law and policy. The implications of Brexit for Scottish environmental law and governance Brexit may significantly affect the exercise of the powers of devolved administrations, casting uncertainty over their ability to achieve objectives embedded in existing environmental laws and policies. For example, in the past the implementation of Scottish climate change and renewable energy policies benefited from supportive EU legal frameworks and financial assistance. Without such support, Scotland will have to find new means to achieve its objectives. The Scottish Government has already announced that, notwithstanding Brexit, it intends to maintain a high level of ambition in environmental protection. Its successfulness in doing so largely depends on future environmental governance arrangements within and outwith the UK. Three elements seem to be of particular importance: 1) Scotland’s future relationship with the EU; 2) differences between areas of EU environmental law and policy; and 3) international environmental cooperation post-Brexit. These three matters are considered in turn below. Scotland’s future relationship with the EU The Scottish Government has expressed a preference for joining/remaining part of the European Economic Area (EEA), either autonomously or together with the rest of the UK.3 Conversely, the UK Government seems to have discarded this option.4 To date no subnational entities have ever joined the EEA.
    [Show full text]