Scrutable

I've been hearing a lot about investment zones recently, mostly in the context of the bonfire of environmental regulations that they'd provide, but I really don't know what they're supposed to do. Can anyone enlighten me? Why would you want one of these areas nearby?

Details not out yet

All the indications are that they look to be quite bad. Low tax, low regulation areas with little democratic control.

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 6:10 am

All the indications are that they look to be quite bad. Low tax, low regulation areas with little democratic control.

Once again Brexit delivers on its promise to "Take Back Control".

I assume these are the World-Beating^TM environmental rules that Gove pledged.

Does anyone know where the nearest street party is the Lexiteers are presumably throwing? I feel like joining in.

If anyone wants me I'll be chucking out shapes to the Internationale with Larry Elliot and Arthur Scargill.

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 6:10 am

All the indications are that they look to be quite bad. Low tax, low regulation areas with little democratic control.

Hypothetically can you imagine a scenario where these things might be helpful?

Say, for example, if you wanted to build a new High speed railway for a similar cost to e.g the French or perhaps Chinese can do?

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:06 am

Say, for example, if you wanted to build a new High speed railway for a similar cost to e.g the French or perhaps Chinese can do?

Ah yes but one of those is an totalitarian state where an autocratic elite enforce their communist ideology and mad schemes on a reluctant populace who are little more than slaves ... and the other one is China

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:06 am

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 6:10 am

All the indications are that they look to be quite bad. Low tax, low regulation areas with little democratic control.

Hypothetically can you imagine a scenario where these things might be helpful?

Say, for example, if you wanted to build a new High speed railway for a similar cost to e.g the French or perhaps Chinese can do?

Then do it across the country if they are so good and put it in a manifesto that clearly outlines the changes to regulations you want to make.

Given that this is an IEA brainfart it's unlikely to be anything particularly nice. One of the headline features is low taxes, so making the rest of the country pay to cover their associated costs.

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:23 am

Then do it across the country if they are so good and put it in a manifesto that clearly outlines the changes to regulations you want to make.

You don’t think you’d do some trials first??? Wow, ambitious.

There’s a new PM. Do you think there should be a GE every time we get one, or do you think the incoming PM should pursue the exact same policies as the outgoing PM?

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:06 am

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 6:10 am

All the indications are that they look to be quite bad. Low tax, low regulation areas with little democratic control.

Hypothetically can you imagine a scenario where these things might be helpful?

Say, for example, if you wanted to build a new High speed railway for a similar cost to e.g the French or perhaps Chinese can do?

The French, Spanish, Germans etc all have stringent environmental regulations, based upon the same EU directives that the UK had to follow. The problem with Britain has been the glacial speeds that compliance has needed. A better solution would be to look at speed rather than chucking out the regulations all together. But working out how to make the system work faster would require things like detailed knowledge of how government works.

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:44 am

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:23 am

Then do it across the country if they are so good and put it in a manifesto that clearly outlines the changes to regulations you want to make.

You don’t think you’d do some trials first??? Wow, ambitious.

There’s a new PM. Do you think there should be a GE every time we get one, or do you think the incoming PM should pursue the exact same policies as the outgoing PM?

They should not blatantly override the manifesto on which their party was given its mandate by the public.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:52 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:06 am

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 6:10 am

All the indications are that they look to be quite bad. Low tax, low regulation areas with little democratic control.

Hypothetically can you imagine a scenario where these things might be helpful?

Say, for example, if you wanted to build a new High speed railway for a similar cost to e.g the French or perhaps Chinese can do?

The French, Spanish, Germans etc all have stringent environmental regulations, based upon the same EU directives that the UK had to follow. The problem with Britain has been the glacial speeds that compliance has needed. A better solution would be to look at speed rather than chucking out the regulations all together. But working out how to make the system work faster would require things like detailed knowledge of how government works.

We actually went over the transposition of EU environmental law in different member states in detail on the old Brexit mega thread, remember the Eels Regulations?

It’s not safe to assume that each country has the same set of processes and requirements.

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:53 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:44 am

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:23 am

Then do it across the country if they are so good and put it in a manifesto that clearly outlines the changes to regulations you want to make.

You don’t think you’d do some trials first??? Wow, ambitious.

There’s a new PM. Do you think there should be a GE every time we get one, or do you think the incoming PM should pursue the exact same policies as the outgoing PM?

They should not blatantly override the manifesto on which their party was given its mandate by the public.

Then what would be the point of changing PM?

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:17 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:52 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:06 am

Hypothetically can you imagine a scenario where these things might be helpful?

Say, for example, if you wanted to build a new High speed railway for a similar cost to e.g the French or perhaps Chinese can do?

The French, Spanish, Germans etc all have stringent environmental regulations, based upon the same EU directives that the UK had to follow. The problem with Britain has been the glacial speeds that compliance has needed. A better solution would be to look at speed rather than chucking out the regulations all together. But working out how to make the system work faster would require things like detailed knowledge of how government works.

We actually went over the transposition of EU environmental law in different member states in detail on the old Brexit mega thread, remember the Eels Regulations?

It’s not safe to assume that each country has the same set of processes and requirements.

The definitely don’t. If they followed the UK’s processes there would be thousands of kilometres of high speed rail which wouldn’t have been built.

But they should all have met the EU’s minimum common requirements.

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:18 am

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:53 am

They should not blatantly override the manifesto on which their party was given its mandate by the public.

Then what would be the point of changing PM?

Stop trolling. It's boring.

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:44 am

You don’t think you’d do some trials first???

Is it really that risky?

These are just re-branded freeports, aren't they?

They'll be used for warehouses, commercial property, maybe sprawling housing developments.

Despite all the red tape the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and removing environmental protection will exacerbate that.

I've never seen UK conservation NGOs kick off, and get politically active, the way they have in the last week. It's unprecedented. Which should tell us this is an unprecedented threat to conservation.

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:34 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:18 am

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:53 am

They should not blatantly override the manifesto on which their party was given its mandate by the public.

Then what would be the point of changing PM?

Stop trolling. It's boring.

Mate these are reasonable questions. Manifesto commitments are not binding, this is because *things* can happen between elections.

For the record I’m worried about the new freeports. But we don’t have details yet and I also recognise that the general approach of freeing things up can also have some benefits.

Didn't some recentish prime minister state that Manifesto Commitments are not promises, just aspirations?

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:29 am

Despite all the red tape the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and removing environmental protection will exacerbate that.

I've never seen UK conservation NGOs kick off, and get politically active, the way they have in the last week. It's unprecedented.

Hmm.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:29 am

Despite all the red tape the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world

That just proves the regulations aren't working and need to be torn up, says Tory MP:

In a panel on rewilding at the Conservative Party Conference yesterday, Ruth Edwards, Conservative MP for Rushcliffe, said she was “deeply disappointed with these organisations” [RSPB, NT, WT etc.].

“The organisations who have perpetuated this hashtag, what are they trying to achieve? [Is it a] membership drive? Then that worked. If they’re trying to get involved with a complex debate then it’s been an abject failure,” she said.

“The government said they would review ELMS, and the second thing they said was they’d look at EU law.

“We've been saying we’re one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, so who can really say that these current regulations are working and there is no way to improve them? Can we stop manufacturing a crisis of our own creation and instead wait and see what actually comes out,” she said.

How many of you have actually worked with or understand the Habitat Regulations as applied in the UK?

I know them quite well from a practical basis and there's loads of room for improvement.

For starters, getting permission to do pretty much anything on designated land isa hugely drawn out process involving multiple stages, each with a 3 month statutory period of reply. This 3 months is currently aspirations and is frequently extended.

The stages are to first identify any potential impacts on designated features (screening) - submit to NE and get approved (3 months from submission). If they agree, and that there are potential impacts, then the next stage is to show how these impacts can be avoided (3 months to get approved following NE's comments and resubmission from the first stage). If they can't be avoided then the next stage is to show how they can be mitigated against (e.g. habitat creation - again, three months from submission following the previous returns). Finally, if mitigation is agreed a statement of case must be put together showing "overriding public interest" that is submitted to the Secretary of State for review and hopefully approval.

This process costs a fortune in environmental consultant's reports. That money could be better spent simply improving or protecting habitat.

For example, I am currently running a construction scheme with a multi year programme that is not allowed to work for 6 months of the year due to over-wintering birds nearby. This scheme has spent over £500k getting environmental permits in place and the same again on reptile fencing and a new badger sett to keep protected species out of the works area. Because the working constraints have doubled the length of the programme this has added an additional £3-4M to the cost. That give-or-take £5M pounds total could have, for example, added many hectares of additional land to the local nature reserve and still come out cheaper and faster.

What is galling is that due to the onerous nature of the consenting process, many if not most people don't bother. So there will be construction work happening from other "illegal" schemes throughout the winter (making our delays to avoid disturbing birds pretty pointless). So far, by the way, our ecologists have caught 4 newts, at about £100k each.

The way we apply our environmental laws is in dire need of reform.

Completely agreed, but I don't think suddenly scrapping the lot without consulting stakeholders is the best way to reform them.

And, having seen how things go in places where due process isn't really followed (eg there's almost no enforcement in Portugal), I do see some value in the regs. The UK implementation is very ticky-boxy though, and does indeed seem to shovel a lot of cash into fairly pointless paper exercises. (I say this having worked for a few consultancies over the years, some good some iffy. ETA so to answer your question I have a fair bit of experience, spent a couple of years on a project where my day job was Habs and Birds Regs stuff. In my current academic life I also have a chapter/paper on implementing Birds Regs, currently under revision.)

I was really holding a small candle of hope that ELMS would turn into something genuinely positive. Really not hard to improve on CAP. Unless you're run by Tories.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 04, 2022 7:41 pm

Completely agreed, but I don't think suddenly scrapping the lot without consulting stakeholders is the best way to reform them.

And, having seen how things go in places where due process isn't really followed (eg there's almost no enforcement in Portugal), I do see some value in the regs. The UK implementation is very ticky-boxy though, and does indeed seem to shovel a lot of cash into fairly pointless paper exercises. (I say this having worked for a few consultancies over the years, some good some iffy. ETA so to answer your question I have a fair bit of experience, spent a couple of years on a project where my day job was Habs and Birds Regs stuff. In my current academic life I also have a chapter/paper on implementing Birds Regs, currently under revision.)

I was really holding a small candle of hope that ELMS would turn into something genuinely positive. Really not hard to improve on CAP. Unless you're run by Tories.

Agreed - bet they U Turn on ELMS though

It just seemed to have huge buy-in from both conservationists and small farmers, as well as a fair few senior Tories. I was nattering with someone who'd exchanged some very sweary texts with a certain former PM's father the other day.

I hope it turns out to have been a bit of a political juggernaut that'll get a turnaround. They U-turned on the top rate tax thing, and that was pure gesture politics.

I think it’s probably chaos because they’re still making policy up on the hoof, the decision is whether to look “strong” initially only to u-turn later or to take longer and consult on policy changes. All there is atm is concern, there’s still no detail

https://mobile.twitter.com/BeccyRSPB/st ... 6502932482