The implications of the performance of
UKIP in the European elections has the potential to change politics
in the UK. It shows what substantial shift in public opinion has
happened but, perhaps, it also shows that the majority of voters do
not favour the UKIP message? Nonetheless, it is highly plausible that
there will be a change in the political landscape and that
euro-scepticism will prevail in some of the mainstream parties.
That scepticism could well extend to
the debate over climate change and the measures necessary to improve
resilience to environmental change. Indeed, we have seen some of this already
with Conservative policy clearly shifting away from land-based
renewable energy that might actually make a difference. Labour policy
too, tends to overlook the fact that the costs of energy are high
because previous administrations have felt it essential to increase tariffs to support greater energy efficiency. So, neither of the two
main parties really offer much hope of an increase in effort to
reduce carbon emissions. The UKIP success almost certainly reinforces
the pressure on these parties to shift towards the 'buy now, pay
later' approach to politics. But, we cannot have our cake and eat it
– failure to change consumption patterns now will be expressed in
the world's climate in years to come; when the next generation picks
up the tab for our greed!
Perhaps there is a more immediate
problem to consider? Should UKIP's objective of leaving the European
Union be achieved, there could be far more profound implications for
the natural environment. At the moment central funding for
maintaining and enhancing the natural environment depends to a very
large extent upon EU agricultural subsidies. There can be no
guarantee that a post-EU government would direct so much money into
positive agri-environment schemes. That would be a big cost-saving
and, as we have seen in the past four years, it is environmental
programmes that have taken the highest pro-rata hits to re-balance
the economy. Loss of this budget would have a huge impact and could
only mean one thing: a further diminution of Britain's wildlife.
Not only would there
be a possible loss of financial support for wildlife, but there might
well be revocation of the Habitats Directive. Indeed, I think one can
consider that an inevitable result; and, as we have seen on several
occasions in the past four years, decision-making will almost
certainly favour development at the cost of wildlife conservation.
For me, the success of UKIP last night
is extremely worrying. I don't subscribe to the view that they are
necessarily xenophobic. I think the vote for UKIP illustrates how
little human beings have evolved over millennia. We are still a
highly tribal animal; and, when the lands or prospects of a tribe are
threatened they respond. In the past that response has been war.
Today, we must hope that war is not the result, but internal tensions
are being expressed by the rising emphasis of rhetoric about
immigration and being ruled from a body to which people feel no affinity. It is therefore of paramount importance that the political elite
start to wake up to the causes of the popularity of UKIP and consider
how to address the concerns of those 'tribes' who are most seriously
affected by EU law and policy.
Events in Austria, Denmark France and
Greece show how there is rising disaffection elsewhere, and some of
that disaffection is very worrying. The spectre of the re-emergence
of the Far Right should be a key political consideration for the
Eurocrats. Hopefully it will make Europe more responsive to the need
to adjust the integration programme back to a level that recognises
national sovereignty and 'tribal' boundaries. As it stands, I think
it is heading towards the point where the great social experiment
disintegrates because the political classes have imposed social
policy that fails to recognise that mankind has a very thin veneer of
civilisation and a hard-wired tribal mindset.
The political classes are, in effect,
the tribal 'elders'. At this point they must start to use wisdom and
connection to the people who have sent the powerful message a vote
for UKIP has sent. It is not a matter of yet more weasel words and
the rhetoric of 'getting their message over'. People have heard the
message and have given their response, so it is time for new messages
– a policy refresh that identifies honestly what is deliverable and
what is the strategic objective over a series of administrations;
heaven forbid, even perhaps some common agreement between parties on
the key objectives for the governance of the country!
With this in mind, I think there is a
need for the mainstream parties to set out their vision for
governance should there be a referendum and the country votes to
leave the European Union. From an environmental perspective, clearly
there could be several un-wanted side effects.
