DOCSLIB.ORG

New IEEP Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New IEEP Report March 2016 The potential policy and environmental consequences for the UK of a departure from the European Union Prepared by: Institute for European Environmental Policy In collaboration with: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This report has been funded and supported by a group of organisations comprising: WWF UK; RSPB; and The Wildlife Trusts. The report has benefited greatly from helpful comments on the text by several individuals both from within these organisations and externally. We are grateful to all of them for their contributions, while the responsibility for errors and matters of judgement remain with the authors. Authors: David Baldock, Allan Buckwell, Alejandro Colsa-Perez, Andrew Farmer, Martin Nesbit, Mia Pantzar. Principal reviewers: Robin Churchill, Franz Fischler, Andy Jordan, Anthony Long, and with additional drafting by Graham Tucker Cover Image: Shutterstock standard license, 2015. Institute for European Environmental Policy London Office 11 Belgrave Road 3rd Floor London, SW1V 1RB Tel: +44 (0) 20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 Brussels Office Quai au Foin, 55 Hooikaai 55 B- 1000 Brussels Tel: +32 (0) 2738 7482 Fax: +32 (0) 2732 4004 The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is an independent not-for-profit institute. IEEP undertakes work for external sponsors in a range of policy areas. We also have our own research programmes. For further information about IEEP, see our website at www.ieep.eu. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of the report ..................................................................................................... 6 1 Introduction and Context ........................................................................................ 13 2 The EU record: strengths and weaknesses as an environmental actor ...................... 15 2.1 Establishing an EU Environmental Policy ......................................................................... 15 2.2 The EU’s Strengths as an Environmental Actor ............................................................... 16 2.3 The EU’s Weaknesses as an Environmental Actor ........................................................... 18 2.4 Current and future influences on EU policy .................................................................... 19 3 Brexit and its consequences .................................................................................... 22 3.1 The departure of the UK would have effects at several levels: ....................................... 22 3.2 Examining some alternatives to EU membership ............................................................ 25 3.2.1 Scenario 1 – Retaining access to the internal market through membership of the EEA (´the inside the EEA Option´) ............................................................................................. 25 3.2.2 Scenario 2: No access to the internal market (‘the entirely outside Option’) .......... 30 4 Environmental quality: pollution control, wastes and chemicals .............................. 34 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 34 4.2 Air quality ......................................................................................................................... 34 4.2.1 Air Quality following a UK departure ....................................................................... 36 4.3 Water quality and management ...................................................................................... 37 4.3.1 Water quality following UK departure ..................................................................... 39 4.4 Controlling pollution emissions ....................................................................................... 40 4.4.1 Controlling emissions following a UK departure ...................................................... 42 4.5 Waste management ......................................................................................................... 42 4.5.1 Waste management following a UK departure ....................................................... 45 4.6 The use of single market measures under the EU Treaty ................................................ 46 4.7 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 47 5 Nature protection ................................................................................................... 49 5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 49 5.2 Relevant nature conservation policy in the EU ............................................................... 49 5.3 Policy scenarios for nature conservation following Brexit .............................................. 54 5.4 Implications of EU departure for nature conservation.................................................... 55 5.4.1 The Birds and Habitats Directives ............................................................................ 55 5.4.2 Marine nature conservation policy .......................................................................... 56 5.4.3 International – impacts outside the UK ................................................................... 57 3 5.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 58 6 Climate and energy ................................................................................................. 61 6.1 Climate policy in the EU ................................................................................................... 61 6.1.1 The UK’s influence on development of the EU’s Emissions Trading System ............ 62 6.1.2 The Effort Sharing Decision ...................................................................................... 63 6.1.3 Climate at the centre of European policy priorities ................................................. 63 6.1.4 Climate-related aspects of energy policy ................................................................. 64 6.2 Future policy impacts ....................................................................................................... 65 6.2.1 International negotiations ....................................................................................... 66 6.2.2 Future EU and UK climate policy .............................................................................. 66 6.2.3 Future climate-relevant areas of EU energy policy .................................................. 68 6.2.4 Future of other climate-related policies ................................................................... 69 6.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 69 7 Agriculture and the environment ............................................................................ 70 7.1 The policy record ............................................................................................................. 71 7.2 Potential changes to UK agricultural policy post withdrawal and the environmental implications .............................................................................................................................. 73 7.2.1 New Trade Relationships ......................................................................................... 73 7.2.2 New domestic policies .............................................................................................. 74 7.3 What are the environmental impacts of such scenarios? ............................................... 78 7.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 81 8 Fisheries policy ....................................................................................................... 84 8.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 84 8.2 The track record of CFP and the environment ................................................................ 84 8.2.1 Britain and the CFP .................................................................................................. 86 8.3 The effects of leaving the EU on fisheries ....................................................................... 89 8.3.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC)..................................................................................... 90 8.3.2 Quota allocation ...................................................................................................... 91 8.3.3 Monitoring and control ............................................................................................ 92 8.3.4 Bilateral fisheries agreements ................................................................................. 93 8.3.5 Subsidies and funding .............................................................................................. 93 8.3.6 The Single Market .................................................................................................... 94 8.4 International fisheries management ............................................................................... 94 8.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 95 Conclusions .................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EU Renegotiation: Fighting for a Flexible Union How to Renegotiate the Terms of the UK’S Membership of the EU
    EU Renegotiation: Fighting for a Flexible Union How to renegotiate the terms of the UK’s Membership of the EU (Quotation in title taken from President Glyn Gaskarth September 2013 ii © Civitas 2013 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL Civitas is a registered charity (no. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales (no. 04023541) email: [email protected] Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute. i Contents Acknowledgements ii Foreword, David Green iii Executive Summary iv Background 1 Introduction 3 Chapter One – Trade 9 Chapter Two – City Regulation 18 Chapter Three – Options for Britain 26 Chapter Four – Common Fisheries Policy 42 Chapter Five – National Borders and Immigration 49 Chapter Six – Foreign & Security Policy 58 Chapter Seven – European Arrest Warrant (EAW) 68 Conclusion 80 Bibliography 81 ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Tamara Chehayeb Makarem and Susan Gaskarth for their support during the compilation of this paper and Dr David Green and Jonathan Lindsell of Civitas for their comments on the text. iii Foreword Our main aim should be the full return of our powers of self-government, but that can’t happen before the referendum promised for 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • ECON Thesaurus on Brexit
    STUDY Requested by the ECON Committee ECON Thesaurus on Brexit Fourth edition Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Authors: Stephanie Honnefelder, Doris Kolassa, Sophia Gernert, Roberto Silvestri Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union July 2017 EN DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICY ECON Thesaurus on Brexit Fourth edition Abstract This thesaurus is a collection of ECON related articles, papers and studies on the possible withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Recent literature from various sources is categorised, chronologically listed – while keeping the content of previous editions - and briefly summarised. To facilitate the use of this tool and to allow an easy access, certain documents may appear in more than one category. The thesaurus is non-exhaustive and may be updated. This document was provided by Policy Department A at the request of the ECON Committee. IP/A/ECON/2017-15 July 2017 PE 607.326 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. AUTHORS Stephanie HONNEFELDER Doris KOLASSA Sophia GERNERT, trainee Roberto SILVESTRI, trainee RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Stephanie HONNEFELDER Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING PANDORA's BOX David Cameron's Referendum Gamble On
    OPENING PANDORA’S BOX David Cameron’s Referendum Gamble on EU Membership Credit: The Economist. By Christina Hull Yale University Department of Political Science Adviser: Jolyon Howorth April 21, 2014 Abstract This essay examines the driving factors behind UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to call a referendum if the Conservative Party is re-elected in 2015. It addresses the persistence of Euroskepticism in the United Kingdom and the tendency of Euroskeptics to generate intra-party conflict that often has dire consequences for Prime Ministers. Through an analysis of the relative impact of political strategy, the power of the media, and British public opinion, the essay argues that addressing party management and electoral concerns has been the primary influence on David Cameron’s decision and contends that Cameron has unwittingly unleashed a Pandora’s box that could pave the way for a British exit from the European Union. Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank the Bates Summer Research Fellowship, without which I would not have had the opportunity to complete my research in London. To Professor Peter Swenson and the members of The Senior Colloquium, Gabe Botelho, Josh Kalla, Gabe Levine, Mary Shi, and Joel Sircus, who provided excellent advice and criticism. To Professor David Cameron, without whom I never would have discovered my interest in European politics. To David Fayngor, who flew halfway across the world to keep me company during my summer research. To my mom for her unwavering support and my dad for his careful proofreading. And finally, to my adviser Professor Jolyon Howorth, who worked with me on this project for over a year and a half.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit Interview: Raoul Ruparel
    Raoul Ruparel Special Advisor to the Prime Minister on Europe August 2018 – July 2019 Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for the Department for Exiting the EU October 2016 – July 2018 Co-Director, Open Europe May 2015 – October 2016 11 August 2020 The renegotiation and the referendum UK in a Changing Europe (UKICE): How influential, do you think, Open Europe was in shaping David Cameron’s approach to the Bloomberg speech and the renegotiation? Raoul Ruparel (RR): I think we were fairly influential. Our chairman at the time, Lord Leach, who sadly passed away, was quite close to Cameron, especially on EU issues, and so had quite a lot of say in some of the parts of the Bloomberg speech. Obviously, Mats Persson also had some input to the speech and then went to work for Cameron on the reform agenda. That being said, before Mats got into Number 10 under Cameron, I think a lot of it was already set. The ambition was already set relatively low in terms of the type of reform Cameron was going to aim for. So I think there was some influence. Certainly, I think Open Europe had an impact in trying to bridge that path between the Eurosceptics and those who wanted to see Brexit, and were in that camp from quite early on, and the wider Page 1/30 public feeling of concern over immigration and other aspects. Yes, there certainly was something there in terms of pushing the Cameron Government in the direction of reform. I don’t think it’s something that Open Europe necessarily created, I think they were looking for something in that space and we were there to fill it.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Monday Volume 551 22 October 2012 No. 53 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 22 October 2012 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 679 22 OCTOBER 2012 680 Mr Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is House of Commons absolutely right. As we build our Army reserve to a level of trained strength of 30,000, it will be essential that we Monday 22 October 2012 capture the skills of regular Army leavers, not just to help us with the numbers but because of the resilience The House met at half-past Two o’clock that they will give to reserve forces. I promise him that that is what we will do. PRAYERS Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): Following Labour’s [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] lead, employers such as John Lewis and O2 will guarantee to interview veterans applying for jobs. Will the Minister Oral Answers to Questions introduce this scheme to all public sector employers? Mr Hammond: One of the tasks that we have asked Lord Ashcroft to undertake is a discussion across DEFENCE Government and the wider public sector to see what more we can do to ensure that service leavers have the The Secretary of State was asked— very best opportunities in relation not only to employment Service Leavers (Support) but access to benefits and social housing—all the other things that they need. I assure the hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: the Unintended Consequences
    A SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS Brexit: The Unintended Consequences Bold policy changes always seem to produce unintended consequences, both favorable and unfavorable. TIE asked more than thirty noted experts to share their analysis of the potential unintended consequences—financial, economic, political, or social—of a British exit from the European Union. 6 THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY SPRING 2016 Britain has been an liberal approaches to various elements of financial market frameworks. essential part of an Yet our opinions can differ. First, we have almost completely different experiences with our countries’ fi- opinion group nancial industries during the Great Recession. The Czech financial sector served as a robust buffer, shielding us defending more from some of the worst shocks. The British have had a rather different experience with their main banks, which market-based and to some extent drives their position on risks in retail bank- ing. This difference is heightened by the difference in the liberal approaches. relative weight of financial institutions in our economies, as expressed by the size of the financial sector in relation MIROSLav SINGER to GDP. The fact that this measure is three to four times Governor, Czech National Bank larger in the United Kingdom than in the Czech Republic gives rise to different attitudes toward the risk of crisis in here is an ongoing debate about the economic mer- the financial industry and to possible crisis resolution. In its and demerits of Brexit in the United Kingdom. a nutshell, in sharp contrast to the United Kingdom, the THowever, from my point of view as a central banker Czech Republic can—if worse comes to worst—afford to from a mid-sized and very open Central European econ- close one of its major banks, guarantee its liabilities, and omy, the strictly economic arguments are in some sense take it into state hands to be recapitalized and later sold, overwhelmed by my own, often very personal experience without ruining its sovereign rating.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyperdemocracy: Euroscepticism and Elections in the United Kingdom
    History in the Making Volume 12 Article 13 January 2019 Hyperdemocracy: Euroscepticism and Elections in the United Kingdom Edward Reminiskey CSUSB Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-in-the-making Part of the European History Commons Recommended Citation Reminiskey, Edward (2019) "Hyperdemocracy: Euroscepticism and Elections in the United Kingdom," History in the Making: Vol. 12 , Article 13. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-in-the-making/vol12/iss1/13 This History in the Making is brought to you for free and open access by the History at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in History in the Making by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. History in the Making Hyperdemocracy: Euroscepticism and Elections in the United Kingdom By Edward Reminiskey Abstract: In the early hours of June 24th, 2016, the results of a referendum asking the United Kingdom to determine its membership status in the European Union were made official. Decided by a slim majority, the decision was made by the electorate to leave the European Union. To characterize this moment as being uncertain would be an understatement. It stood as a major turning point in twenty-first century politics, and presents an opportunity to explore the recent phenomenon affecting liberal democracy. “Brexit,” as it would be referred to, instigated scholars to ask important questions about the contemporary state of liberal democracy. What happens when a liberal democracy undermines itself? How can scholars characterize the latest trends in liberal democracy? This paper attempts to answer these types of questions by viewing recent developments in the United Kingdom, utilizing the lens of hyperdemocracy theory, and applying it to elections and political media analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Issues to Watch in 2021
    ISSN 2600-268X Ten issues to watch in 2021 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Étienne Bassot Members' Research Service PE 659.436 – January 2021 EN This EPRS publication seeks to offer insights and put into context ten key issues and policy areas that are likely to feature prominently on the political agenda of the European Union in 2021. It has been compiled and edited by Isabelle Gaudeul-Ehrhart of the Members' Research Service, based on contributions from the following policy analysts: Marie-Laure Augère and Anna Caprile (Food for all? Food for thought), Denise Chircop and Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass (Culture in crisis?), Costica Dumbrava (A new procedure to manage Europe's borders), Gregor Erbach (A digital boost for the circular economy), Silvia Kotanidis (Conference on the Future of Europe, in the introduction), Elena Lazarou (A new US President in the White House), Marianna Pari (The EU recovery plan: Turning crisis into opportunity?), Jakub Przetacznik and Nicole Scholz (The vaccine race for health safety), Ros Shreeves and Martina Prpic (Re-invigorating the fight against inequality?), Branislav Staniček (Turkey and stormy waters in the eastern Mediterranean) and Marcin Szczepanski (Critical raw materials for Europe). The cover image was produced by Samy Chahri. Further details of the progress of on-going EU legislative proposals, including all those mentioned in this document, are available in the European Parliament's Legislative Train Schedule, at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/ LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translations: DE, FR Manuscript completed in January 2021. DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and the Future of the US–EU and US–UK Relationships
    Special relationships in flux: Brexit and the future of the US–EU and US–UK relationships TIM OLIVER AND MICHAEL JOHN WILLIAMS If the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union in the referendum of June 2016 then one of the United States’ closest allies, one of the EU’s largest member states and a leading member of NATO will negotiate a withdrawal from the EU, popularly known as ‘Brexit’. While talk of a UK–US ‘special relation- ship’ or of Britain as a ‘transatlantic bridge’ can be overplayed, not least by British prime ministers, the UK is a central player in US–European relations.1 This reflects not only Britain’s close relations with Washington, its role in European security and its membership of the EU; it also reflects America’s role as a European power and Europe’s interests in the United States. A Brexit has the potential to make a significant impact on transatlantic relations. It will change both the UK as a country and Britain’s place in the world.2 It will also change the EU, reshape European geopolitics, affect NATO and change the US–UK and US–EU relationships, both internally and in respect of their place in the world. Such is the potential impact of Brexit on the United States that, in an interview with the BBC’s Jon Sopel in summer 2015, President Obama stated: I will say this, that having the United Kingdom in the European Union gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union and is part of the corner- stone of institutions built after World War II that has made the world safer and more prosperous.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU Referendum and EU Reform
    EUROPEAN UNION COMMITTEE The EU referendum and EU reform Evidence Volume Catherine Bearder MEP, Ashley Fox MEP and Glenis Willmott MEP—Oral Evidence (QQ 126-133) ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Bertelsmann Stiftung, Centre for European Policy Studies and European Policy Centre—Oral Evidence (QQ 134-139) ......................................................................................................................... 19 Elmar Brok MEP and Danuta Hübner MEP—Oral Evidence (QQ 120-125) .............................. 33 CBI, TheCityUK and TUC—Oral Evidence (QQ 53-64) ............................................................... 44 The Centre for Cross Border Studies—Written Evidence (VEU0008) ...................................... 65 Centre for European Policy Studies, Bertelsmann Stiftung and European Policy Centre—Oral Evidence (QQ 133-138) ......................................................................................................................... 80 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—Written Evidence (VEU0006) ................................ 81 Professor Laura Cram and Professor Andrew Scott—Oral Evidence (QQ 98-105) ............... 89 Alun Davies AM, Suzy Davies AM, Rt Hon Lord Elis-Thomas AM David Melding AM, and William Powell AM—Oral Evidence (QQ 22-27) .......................................................................... 115 Suzy Davies AM, Alun Davies AM, Rt Hon Lord Elis-Thomas
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Initial Reflections
    Brexit: initial reflections ANAND MENON AND JOHN-PAUL SALTER* At around four-thirty on the morning of 24 June 2016, the media began to announce that the British people had voted to leave the European Union. As the final results came in, it emerged that the pro-Brexit campaign had garnered 51.9 per cent of the votes cast and prevailed by a margin of 1,269,501 votes. For the first time in its history, a member state had voted to quit the EU. The outcome of the referendum reflected the confluence of several long- term and more contingent factors. In part, it represented the culmination of a longstanding tension in British politics between, on the one hand, London’s relative effectiveness in shaping European integration to match its own prefer- ences and, on the other, political diffidence when it came to trumpeting such success. This paradox, in turn, resulted from longstanding intraparty divisions over Britain’s relationship with the EU, which have hamstrung such attempts as there have been to make a positive case for British EU membership. The media found it more worthwhile to pour a stream of anti-EU invective into the resulting vacuum rather than critically engage with the issue, let alone highlight the benefits of membership. Consequently, public opinion remained lukewarm at best, treated to a diet of more or less combative and Eurosceptic political rhetoric, much of which disguised a far different reality. The result was also a consequence of the referendum campaign itself. The strategy pursued by Prime Minister David Cameron—of adopting a critical stance towards the EU, promising a referendum, and ultimately campaigning for continued membership—failed.
    [Show full text]
  • BREXIT and the EU BUDGET: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY? Jörg Haas | Research Fellow, Jacques Delors Institut - Berlin
    POLICY PAPER 183 16 JANUARY 2017 BREXIT AND THE EU BUDGET: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY? Jörg Haas | Research Fellow, Jacques Delors Institut - Berlin Eulalia Rubio | Senior Research Fellow, Jacques Delors Institute SUMMARY Brexit could affect EU public finances through multiple channels. One-off effects such as the ‘divorce bill’ receive much attention today, but structural effects could be more important for the EU in the medium term. Without the UK, the EU budget would face a permanent funding gap. THE BREXIT GAP We estimate that the ‘Brexit gap’ in the budget would amount to approxi- (...) WOULD AMOUNT TO mately €10 billion per year. The EU Member States need to decide whether to APPROXIMATELY €10 adjust to this shortfall by (1) increasing national contributions, (2) cutting BILLION PER YEAR” spending, or (3) a combination of the two. We draw up scenarios that illustrate the consequences of each option for individual countries. We discuss the implications of these scenarios for the negotiations about the EU’s next multi-annual financial framework (MFF) starting in 2018. We expect hard bargaining as Brexit would entrench existing divisions between net contributors and net beneficiaries of the EU budget. • Increased contributions would likely be resisted by net contributors, who would have to shoulder most of the burden. Countries that currently benefit from a ‘rebate on the rebate’ would be among the most affected. • Budget cuts are unappealing to those countries that currently profit from EU cohesion policy and the Common Agricultural Policy. The bargaining strength of the two groups will depend on their members and on the legal framework.
    [Show full text]