In case you haven't had time for a near 2,000 word rant on the Treasury's tired, self-defeating orthodoxy on the environment and its alleged attempt to scupper a green Brexit: a thread 👇
The (well-sourced) rumour is the reason the government's proposals for a post-Brexit green watchdog were much weaker than expected comes down to Treasury fears a robust green watchdog would somehow harm the economy.
Result is proposals for watchdog that would be weaker than current EU-backed enforcement mechanisms. It wouldn't be able to initiate legal proceedings against govt, wouldn't cover climate policy, and if govt found guilty of infractions it could be limited to writing stern letters
It's only a consultation, so it could be strengthened, but as it stands it would be a 'toothless mutt' (in the words of Chris Huhne).
And this matters, because without strong enforcement mechanism it becomes even harder to trust Michael Gove's promises of a green Brexit and regulatory continuity (and bear in mind Gove already has, shall we say, trust issues as it is).
But it is even worse that that, because if the Treasury is opposing proposals for a meaningful environmental watchdog it tells us three things, none of them good, all of them bordering on the scandalous:
1. For all the government's welcome talk of 'clean growth' and track record of growing the economy while cutting emissions and cleaning up beaches, the most powerful dept in Whitehall still seems to think enforcing environmental regulations damages the economy.
2. The Treasury, supposedly the repository of soft Brexit sensibleness, still doesn't seem to take seriously EU insistence that adherence to environmental rules is a red line in any new UK-EU trade deal.
And 3. Like a North Sea banana republic it seems parts of the government want to make it easier for Ministers to basically break the law.
Cos this is not a debate about what the rules should be. That debate is coming post-Brexit when the arch-leavers launch their transparent plan to tear up May's eventual deal and declare all out war on environmental and social protections. Believe me, that's what's coming next...
No, the debate on the watchdog is simply about enforcing the existing and future law. And I can't think of a reason for not wanting meaningful and independent enforcement powers unless you wanted to reserve the option of breaking the law. Reminder: this is the actual govt.
And again, this matters beyond the arcane legislative arguments. Because many of the rules imposed on the government are about sending long term investment signals to business.
Emissions, renewables, efficiency, air quality, water quality. All those binding targets are saying to business and investors, 'we're serious about these goals, we'll aim to reach them, and will continue to act beyond the term of a single parliament'.
Some companies already ignore these targets, gambling that when the time comes their lobbying muscle will convince govts to miss them and/or not throw their toys out the pram when they are missed. A deliberately weakened watchdog only provides succor to this strategy.
In one swoop a toothless watchdog would torch the government's green Brexit plans, jeopardise a UK-EU trade deal, undermine green investment, revive the economy v environment canard, and boost both polluters' and the ideologues who want to tear down effective regulations.
And amidst the mounting farce that is the fact we are 10 months from Brexit and the government's plans for the Customs Union are as opaque as a bog on the Irish border, this issue and many other besides are treated as a second or third order concern.
All of which means that after a few months of hoping a full blown economic and constitutional tyre yard fire Brexit might just be averted, I'm getting The Fear again.
Here's the original 2,000 or so words on why government manoeuvring on green watchdog is scandalous in truest sense of the word businessgreen.com/bg/blog-post/3…
