Jan 10, 2016 at 8:39 AM geronimo

EUreferendum did a piece on this topic on 3 January 2016:

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85880

Article 16 of the Habitats Directive provides for derogations: "to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property", or "in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature".

Although such a stance is unpopular with "green" interests, the reality of the situation is that the only way an EU directive can have a decisive effect on flood protection is if the local (i.e., national) authorities permit it. Effectively, our own government is the author of our grief, using EU law to promote a "green" agenda.

derogation = opt-out

Quick question - did anyone save an audio clip from the Today programme on 10th Dec with Roger Harrabin talking about the "new world order", etc?

I thought I'd recorded it, but hadn't! Now it's gone from the Today programme website.

Not to worry, if not. I think I've got the important bits. :)

What we are trying to do in Paris - the delegates are trying to do in Paris - is to codify the shape of a changing world...

Negotiators here are, in effect, discussing the shape of a new world order. The old rich-versus-poor divisions are now much more complex. The most vulnerable nations blame the rich for the problem, but also fear the rise in pollution from emerging nations like China, India and Brazil. The Americans partially agree.They say emerging economies must play a much bigger role in curbing emissions and in helping the most vulnerable states. Emerging economies say the US can't wriggle out of its historic pollution this way. It's not just posturing. These are deeply-held views. Delegates have 36 hours to start reshaping the way the world sees itself.

So taking the the local examples here in France and what appears to be the Dutch policy I would say that it is government interpretation of the regulations in the UK which cause the vast majority problems.

As I understand it previous to the EU DWF in 2000 it was a local responsibility to keep waterways clear. The directive made this a government responsibility, and hence the government set up the Environmental Agency to check, and report back to the EU on, how the UK was meeting its obligations under to the Directive. As far as I'm aware the Directive made it clear that rivers should not be disturbed in order to encourage the growth of wild-life, and vegetation. If the government interpreted this as not-dredging (and who could blame them?) they may have been mistaken, but taking away the responsibiity for keeping the waterways free from the local people was clearly going to cause problems. And it has.

stewgreen
I watched something on TV last week about the Dutch flood prevention policies, and apart from building barriers to protect places like Rotterdam, and which make the Thames barrier look insignificant, they spend a huge amount on dredging. This has been the case since the storm of 1953 when unlike the UK the Dutch decided that protecting land and people was just as important as it ever was for them. They still have that prime objective today.

So taking the the local examples here in France and what appears to be the Dutch policy I would say that it is government interpretation of the regulations in the UK which cause the vast majority problems. Seeing the way that the Greens run every aspect of life in the UK I suspect in this instance leaving the EU would make precious little difference. In a few years it wouldn't surprise me if the greens suggest abandoning places like York as they are unsustainable.

Jan 10, 2016 at 2:28 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

H/T