EU environmental law is built like a cathedral; many architects, countless masons, trades and an army of inspectors.
Each new directive draws on 27 member states’ ministries, civil-service teams, scientific committees, the European Environment Agency, Parliament committees, industry bodies, NGOs and public consultations in every language. The result is legislation that’s broad, stress-tested, and difficult to pick apart because it’s been hammered into shape by thousands of contributors.
By contrast, the UK process is currently more like a well-meaning garden shed project: a handful of Whitehall departments and Westminster committees, fewer expert layers and far smaller stakeholder input. It can (in theory) move quicker but the trade off is reach and resilience; policies risk being narrower, easier to lobby, less future-proof or repeatedly kicked down the road.
EU waste, reuse, and circular-economy measures typically arrive more robust, all-encompassing and precisely defined than their UK counterparts. When more minds build the framework, the structure stands stronger and to dismiss that body of work on grounds of geography alone isn’t sovereignty, it’s self-sabotage.
The environment doesn’t stop at Dover and neither should our policy.
Adopting EU waste and circular economy legislation isn’t about waving a blue flag; it’s about cost, access and timing. EU legislation 1 - link - EU legislation 2 - link - more like this - link
No comments:
Post a Comment