Britain has voted to leave the EU. David Cameron has resigned as Prime Minister. And the markets are in turmoil.

There will now be an almighty battle to become the next Conservative Party leader and with it, until the next election at least, the next Prime Minister.

So let’s take a look at the candidates for the top job and find out what they might do to the environment.

Let’s start with the favourite, Boris Johnson.

Johnson is something of a climate sceptic and used his Telegraph column a few years back to cast doubts on the existence of global warming by pointing out that it was snowing in London.

The former London Mayor voted to allow fracking in national parks and areas of special scientific interest in December last year. In fact, he loves fracking so much, he said in 2013 that wanted it under the streets of the Capital.

“If reserves of shale can be exploited in London we should leave no stone unturned, or unfracked, in the cause of keeping the lights on. It’s time for maximum boldness in energy supply”, he said.

That’s right, ‘maximum boldness’, none of this namby-pamby ‘boldness light’, endorsed by the empty suits in Brussels.

The likely leader of post-Brexit Britain is also handsomely backed by Ukrainian millionaire and energy magnate Alexander Termerko who has tipped his man as the next Tory leader.

The man standing awkwardly behind Boris for much of the referendum campaign, struggling to clap like a human being, also voted to allow fracking in national parks in that December vote.

Michael Gove caused controversy while education secretary for threatening to remove climate change from the national geography curriculum. He’s also backed badger culling and the sell-off of English forests.

Given that he’s spent the last few months cheering him, you would think he’d be unlikely to challenge Boris for the leadership. But with strong support with the Tory base, he could be persuaded to throw his hat into the ring.

The rest of the leading figures in the Conservative side of pro-Brexit camp have a similarly un-green look to them.

Employment minister Priti Patel is seen as a rising star on the right of the Conservative Party. In a past life, she did PR for the tobacco industry. Now she’s one of the key figures within the parliamentary party’s right-wing 1922 committee.

On top of backing fracking in national parks, Patel has called on the government to hold firm against ‘anti-fracking extremists’. She also joined her group of Eurosceptics in voting to apply the climate change levy tax to electricity generated from renewable sources in March. October may well come too soon for Patel, but she’ll be a key figure in a Johnson’s government, whether she seeks the leadership or nor.

Other key Brexiteers who are unlikely challenge the leadership, but will play important parts include Chris Grayling, who has claimed that fracking was the “solution” to high energy bills, Iain Duncan Smith, was also fine with our national parks being fracked, and has “consistently voted against measures to prevent climate change”, according to They Work For You and Andrea Leadsom.

Leadsom asked if climate change was real when she started her job as an energy minister, but now insists she has been ‘fully persuaded’. She has dismissed ‘fracking scaremongering’ and has called the process an “opportunity not to be missed“.

Perhaps the least green of the Brexiteers, however, is former environment secretary Owen Paterson, and at this point he looks likely to run against Johnson for leadership.

A noted climate sceptic, Paterson has advocated scrapping the climate change act. He is also a supporter of the controversial Global Warming Policy Foundation and has spoken at events held by the organisation.

In a speech earlier this month, Paterson claimed that leaving the EU would be good for the environment, though as he has previously spoken about the “advantages of global warming”, it’s best to take that with a pinch of salt.

Theresa May is likely to be Johnson biggest challenger, but her standing with party activists has been damaged by her support for the Remain campaign in the referendum. She has a mixed record on the environment, and was absent for the vote on fracking in national parks before Christmas. A loyal cabinet member, May’s voting record mirrors the government’s record on energy and climate change.

These are unsettled times, but one thing is certain: if you thought the in-fighting in the Conservative Party was bad during the referendum, you won’t believe what’s about to come.

Joe Sandler Clarke is an Investigator at Greenpeace UK. He also writes for Greenpeace Energydesk, where this article was originally published.

If a week is long time in politics, how long does that make three months? Answer: an archaeological epoch.

That is to say, the period that lies ahead until the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham in early October opens up giant vistas of time – plenty long enough for everything to change, completely.

And in that time, anything could happen. In fact, one of those anythings already has happened. No, I’m not talking about the Brexit vote itself, but about David Cameron’s response to it.

Before the referendum, he has promised that in the event of a Leave vote, he would instantly trigger the UK’s withdrawal by filing the Article 50 notification that sets off an irrevocable process concluding in the nullification of all EU treaties after no more than two years.

But then, Cameron did no such thing. He left that act to his successor – who would only take office at the Tory Party conference in October. Or possibly, it is now being mooted, in November. After all, surely the candidates should present themselves to the conference, giving members another month in which to ponder, and vote?

And then what’s the rush to file the Article 50 notification even then? None whatsoever, leadership favorite Boris Johnson is indicating. Let the EU stew! We will do it in our own time.

And then what if the new leader calls a general election (or indeed We The People demand one!)? That’s unlikely to take place until, say, March. Or April. Or even May. And we must surely await the outcome of the election before before filing the momentous Article 50 notification?

An extraordinary reversal

So what is really going on here? In my opinion, two things:

1. Over three months, or six months, public opinion is likely to change completely. The narrow but decisive majority in favour of Brexit that emerged in the referendum may have totally evaporated by then. It already appears to be shrinking away as the real economic implications sink in. Cameron knew this might very probably happen and, as a determined Remainer, has left the door firmly open to a reversal of the Brexit decision.

2. For the Leavers, it’s essential to secure the best possible deal from the EU. But the realpolitik says that filing the Article 50 notification is the last, not the first thing, you should do. The UK’s only real negotiating edge comes from its ability to be as awkward as possible while a full, permanent member of the EU. The moment it’s filed, they know we are out after two years no matter what. They (EU officials and other member states) can refuse to concede anything in the ‘formal negotiations’ triggered by Article 50, and after two years we are unceremoniously ejected with no come back.

So what this means, in the realpolitik, is that the negotiations start now – as in fact they already have, with EU officials and grandees, Germany’s Angela Merkel and our Boris all setting out their various positions. Only once these ‘shadow negotiations’ are complete and a deal is tied up can the UK actually file its Article 50 notification – and at that point it’s just over the lawyers to write down what has been agreed, and formal votes to follow in the EU Parliament and Council.

So in fact, it’s likely to be a very long time before any Article 50 Notice is signed – if indeed it ever will be.

But surely the UK has to leave? The People have spoken!

Up to a point, Lord Copper. First, it looks increasingly likely that there will be a general election before any final decision is made. If one (or more) of the parties stand on a ‘Remain’ manifesto pledge and get(s) elected into government, then the referendum result is trumped. And that’s something that could well happen.

But even without that, the government may in the future decide to hold a second referendum (as today urged by Lord Heseltine, backed by almost 4 million citizens) to allow the electorate to vote on the deal that has been negotiated (pre-Article 50, mediated by Angela Merkel), and all the other consequences of a Brexit that have been emerging. These are likely to include:

• no £350 million a week dividend for the NHS, or for anything else;
• slower economic recovery in the UK, fewer jobs, reduced pensions, and higher taxes;
• higher prices for fuel and other imports, and more expensive foreign holidays;
• a second independence referendum in Scotland, which the SNP would win;
• a ‘border poll’ in Ireland that could see Northern Ireland quit the UK and the Emerald Isle re-united in brotherly love;
• being stuck with all that ‘EU red tape’ we love to hate so much as a price of being in the single market – but with no power over it in the EU Council, Parliament or Commission;
• no reduction in immigration – again, the single market would force us to keep our borders open, with maybe a symbolic exemption for violent criminals;
• the certain knowledge that if we were to leave and re-join, it would take a long time and we would get a far worse deal than we have now – no rebate, no opt-outs and forcible entry into eurozone and Schengen.

And how many people would vote for that? OK, a few die-hard UKIPpers, but never enough people to win a majority. So there can be little doubt that the now inevitable delays will play into the hands of the Remainers.

Yes, all the talk now is of respecting the verdict of the people and all that. And so it will remain for some time to come. But with the strong shift in public sentiment that is already under way, and set to grow, it won’t last out a run of strong Remain opinion polls.

A best-case scenario?

Of course this may not end well for the UK, Europe and the environment. But it could. If Jeremy Corbyn survives the leadership putsch now under way from the Blairite rump of MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party, he would be in a position to fight a putative general election on a powerful, progressive pro-EU platform.

This would be based on his vision of a social EU – an EU of the people, not the corporations; and a pro-environment EU, taking a lead on global warming, accelerating the transition to renewable energy economy, ramping up enforcement of environment laws, moving ahead with the creation of a ‘circular economy’, and clamping down on toxic agrochemicals.

And of course ditching TTIP, CETA, TISA and all the rotten medley of ‘free trade’ deals that hand over vast antidemocratic powers to global corporations and financiers.

That’s an election he could win, and go on to build the fairer, cleaner, greener, more inclusive Britain we so desperately need.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.

Britain has voted to leave the EU. David Cameron has resigned as Prime Minister. And the markets are in turmoil.

There will now be an almighty battle to become the next Conservative Party leader and with it, until the next election at least, the next Prime Minister.

So let’s take a look at the candidates for the top job and find out what they might do to the environment.

Let’s start with the favourite, Boris Johnson.

Johnson is something of a climate sceptic and used his Telegraph column a few years back to cast doubts on the existence of global warming by pointing out that it was snowing in London.

The former London Mayor voted to allow fracking in national parks and areas of special scientific interest in December last year. In fact, he loves fracking so much, he said in 2013 that wanted it under the streets of the Capital.

“If reserves of shale can be exploited in London we should leave no stone unturned, or unfracked, in the cause of keeping the lights on. It’s time for maximum boldness in energy supply”, he said.

That’s right, ‘maximum boldness’, none of this namby-pamby ‘boldness light’, endorsed by the empty suits in Brussels.

The likely leader of post-Brexit Britain is also handsomely backed by Ukrainian millionaire and energy magnate Alexander Termerko who has tipped his man as the next Tory leader.

The man standing awkwardly behind Boris for much of the referendum campaign, struggling to clap like a human being, also voted to allow fracking in national parks in that December vote.

Michael Gove caused controversy while education secretary for threatening to remove climate change from the national geography curriculum. He’s also backed badger culling and the sell-off of English forests.

Given that he’s spent the last few months cheering him, you would think he’d be unlikely to challenge Boris for the leadership. But with strong support with the Tory base, he could be persuaded to throw his hat into the ring.

The rest of the leading figures in the Conservative side of pro-Brexit camp have a similarly un-green look to them.

Employment minister Priti Patel is seen as a rising star on the right of the Conservative Party. In a past life, she did PR for the tobacco industry. Now she’s one of the key figures within the parliamentary party’s right-wing 1922 committee.

On top of backing fracking in national parks, Patel has called on the government to hold firm against ‘anti-fracking extremists’. She also joined her group of Eurosceptics in voting to apply the climate change levy tax to electricity generated from renewable sources in March. October may well come too soon for Patel, but she’ll be a key figure in a Johnson’s government, whether she seeks the leadership or nor.

Other key Brexiteers who are unlikely challenge the leadership, but will play important parts include Chris Grayling, who has claimed that fracking was the “solution” to high energy bills, Iain Duncan Smith, was also fine with our national parks being fracked, and has “consistently voted against measures to prevent climate change”, according to They Work For You and Andrea Leadsom.

Leadsom asked if climate change was real when she started her job as an energy minister, but now insists she has been ‘fully persuaded’. She has dismissed ‘fracking scaremongering’ and has called the process an “opportunity not to be missed“.

Perhaps the least green of the Brexiteers, however, is former environment secretary Owen Paterson, and at this point he looks likely to run against Johnson for leadership.

A noted climate sceptic, Paterson has advocated scrapping the climate change act. He is also a supporter of the controversial Global Warming Policy Foundation and has spoken at events held by the organisation.

In a speech earlier this month, Paterson claimed that leaving the EU would be good for the environment, though as he has previously spoken about the “advantages of global warming”, it’s best to take that with a pinch of salt.

Theresa May is likely to be Johnson biggest challenger, but her standing with party activists has been damaged by her support for the Remain campaign in the referendum. She has a mixed record on the environment, and was absent for the vote on fracking in national parks before Christmas. A loyal cabinet member, May’s voting record mirrors the government’s record on energy and climate change.

These are unsettled times, but one thing is certain: if you thought the in-fighting in the Conservative Party was bad during the referendum, you won’t believe what’s about to come.

Joe Sandler Clarke is an Investigator at Greenpeace UK. He also writes for Greenpeace Energydesk, where this article was originally published.

If a week is long time in politics, how long does that make three months? Answer: an archaeological epoch.

That is to say, the period that lies ahead until the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham in early October opens up giant vistas of time – plenty long enough for everything to change, completely.

And in that time, anything could happen. In fact, one of those anythings already has happened. No, I’m not talking about the Brexit vote itself, but about David Cameron’s response to it.

Before the referendum, he has promised that in the event of a Leave vote, he would instantly trigger the UK’s withdrawal by filing the Article 50 notification that sets off an irrevocable process concluding in the nullification of all EU treaties after no more than two years.

But then, Cameron did no such thing. He left that act to his successor – who would only take office at the Tory Party conference in October. Or possibly, it is now being mooted, in November. After all, surely the candidates should present themselves to the conference, giving members another month in which to ponder, and vote?

And then what’s the rush to file the Article 50 notification even then? None whatsoever, leadership favorite Boris Johnson is indicating. Let the EU stew! We will do it in our own time.

And then what if the new leader calls a general election (or indeed We The People demand one!)? That’s unlikely to take place until, say, March. Or April. Or even May. And we must surely await the outcome of the election before before filing the momentous Article 50 notification?

An extraordinary reversal

So what is really going on here? In my opinion, two things:

1. Over three months, or six months, public opinion is likely to change completely. The narrow but decisive majority in favour of Brexit that emerged in the referendum may have totally evaporated by then. It already appears to be shrinking away as the real economic implications sink in. Cameron knew this might very probably happen and, as a determined Remainer, has left the door firmly open to a reversal of the Brexit decision.

2. For the Leavers, it’s essential to secure the best possible deal from the EU. But the realpolitik says that filing the Article 50 notification is the last, not the first thing, you should do. The UK’s only real negotiating edge comes from its ability to be as awkward as possible while a full, permanent member of the EU. The moment it’s filed, they know we are out after two years no matter what. They (EU officials and other member states) can refuse to concede anything in the ‘formal negotiations’ triggered by Article 50, and after two years we are unceremoniously ejected with no come back.

So what this means, in the realpolitik, is that the negotiations start now – as in fact they already have, with EU officials and grandees, Germany’s Angela Merkel and our Boris all setting out their various positions. Only once these ‘shadow negotiations’ are complete and a deal is tied up can the UK actually file its Article 50 notification – and at that point it’s just over the lawyers to write down what has been agreed, and formal votes to follow in the EU Parliament and Council.

So in fact, it’s likely to be a very long time before any Article 50 Notice is signed – if indeed it ever will be.

But surely the UK has to leave? The People have spoken!

Up to a point, Lord Copper. First, it looks increasingly likely that there will be a general election before any final decision is made. If one (or more) of the parties stand on a ‘Remain’ manifesto pledge and get(s) elected into government, then the referendum result is trumped. And that’s something that could well happen.

But even without that, the government may in the future decide to hold a second referendum (as today urged by Lord Heseltine, backed by almost 4 million citizens) to allow the electorate to vote on the deal that has been negotiated (pre-Article 50, mediated by Angela Merkel), and all the other consequences of a Brexit that have been emerging. These are likely to include:

• no £350 million a week dividend for the NHS, or for anything else;
• slower economic recovery in the UK, fewer jobs, reduced pensions, and higher taxes;
• higher prices for fuel and other imports, and more expensive foreign holidays;
• a second independence referendum in Scotland, which the SNP would win;
• a ‘border poll’ in Ireland that could see Northern Ireland quit the UK and the Emerald Isle re-united in brotherly love;
• being stuck with all that ‘EU red tape’ we love to hate so much as a price of being in the single market – but with no power over it in the EU Council, Parliament or Commission;
• no reduction in immigration – again, the single market would force us to keep our borders open, with maybe a symbolic exemption for violent criminals;
• the certain knowledge that if we were to leave and re-join, it would take a long time and we would get a far worse deal than we have now – no rebate, no opt-outs and forcible entry into eurozone and Schengen.

And how many people would vote for that? OK, a few die-hard UKIPpers, but never enough people to win a majority. So there can be little doubt that the now inevitable delays will play into the hands of the Remainers.

Yes, all the talk now is of respecting the verdict of the people and all that. And so it will remain for some time to come. But with the strong shift in public sentiment that is already under way, and set to grow, it won’t last out a run of strong Remain opinion polls.

A best-case scenario?

Of course this may not end well for the UK, Europe and the environment. But it could. If Jeremy Corbyn survives the leadership putsch now under way from the Blairite rump of MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party, he would be in a position to fight a putative general election on a powerful, progressive pro-EU platform.

This would be based on his vision of a social EU – an EU of the people, not the corporations; and a pro-environment EU, taking a lead on global warming, accelerating the transition to renewable energy economy, ramping up enforcement of environment laws, moving ahead with the creation of a ‘circular economy’, and clamping down on toxic agrochemicals.

And of course ditching TTIP, CETA, TISA and all the rotten medley of ‘free trade’ deals that hand over vast antidemocratic powers to global corporations and financiers.

That’s an election he could win, and go on to build the fairer, cleaner, greener, more inclusive Britain we so desperately need.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.

If a week is long time in politics, how long does that make three months? Answer: an archaeological epoch.

That is to say, the period that lies ahead until the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham in early October opens up giant vistas of time – plenty long enough for everything to change, completely.

And in that time, anything could happen. In fact, one of those anythings already has happened. No, I’m not talking about the Brexit vote itself, but about David Cameron’s response to it.

Before the referendum, he has promised that in the event of a Leave vote, he would instantly trigger the UK’s withdrawal by filing the Article 50 notification that sets off an irrevocable process concluding in the nullification of all EU treaties after no more than two years.

But then, Cameron did no such thing. He left that act to his successor – who would only take office at the Tory Party conference in October. Or possibly, it is now being mooted, in November. After all, surely the candidates should present themselves to the conference, giving members another month in which to ponder, and vote?

And then what’s the rush to file the Article 50 notification even then? None whatsoever, leadership favorite Boris Johnson is indicating. Let the EU stew! We will do it in our own time.

And then what if the new leader calls a general election (or indeed We The People demand one!)? That’s unlikely to take place until, say, March. Or April. Or even May. And we must surely await the outcome of the election before before filing the momentous Article 50 notification?

An extraordinary reversal

So what is really going on here? In my opinion, two things:

1. Over three months, or six months, public opinion is likely to change completely. The narrow but decisive majority in favour of Brexit that emerged in the referendum may have totally evaporated by then. It already appears to be shrinking away as the real economic implications sink in. Cameron knew this might very probably happen and, as a determined Remainer, has left the door firmly open to a reversal of the Brexit decision.

2. For the Leavers, it’s essential to secure the best possible deal from the EU. But the realpolitik says that filing the Article 50 notification is the last, not the first thing, you should do. The UK’s only real negotiating edge comes from its ability to be as awkward as possible while a full, permanent member of the EU. The moment it’s filed, they know we are out after two years no matter what. They (EU officials and other member states) can refuse to concede anything in the ‘formal negotiations’ triggered by Article 50, and after two years we are unceremoniously ejected with no come back.

So what this means, in the realpolitik, is that the negotiations start now – as in fact they already have, with EU officials and grandees, Germany’s Angela Merkel and our Boris all setting out their various positions. Only once these ‘shadow negotiations’ are complete and a deal is tied up can the UK actually file its Article 50 notification – and at that point it’s just over the lawyers to write down what has been agreed, and formal votes to follow in the EU Parliament and Council.

So in fact, it’s likely to be a very long time before any Article 50 Notice is signed – if indeed it ever will be.

But surely the UK has to leave? The People have spoken!

Up to a point, Lord Copper. First, it looks increasingly likely that there will be a general election before any final decision is made. If one (or more) of the parties stand on a ‘Remain’ manifesto pledge and get(s) elected into government, then the referendum result is trumped. And that’s something that could well happen.

But even without that, the government may in the future decide to hold a second referendum (as today urged by Lord Heseltine, backed by almost 4 million citizens) to allow the electorate to vote on the deal that has been negotiated (pre-Article 50, mediated by Angela Merkel), and all the other consequences of a Brexit that have been emerging. These are likely to include:

• no £350 million a week dividend for the NHS, or for anything else;
• slower economic recovery in the UK, fewer jobs, reduced pensions, and higher taxes;
• higher prices for fuel and other imports, and more expensive foreign holidays;
• a second independence referendum in Scotland, which the SNP would win;
• a ‘border poll’ in Ireland that could see Northern Ireland quit the UK and the Emerald Isle re-united in brotherly love;
• being stuck with all that ‘EU red tape’ we love to hate so much as a price of being in the single market – but with no power over it in the EU Council, Parliament or Commission;
• no reduction in immigration – again, the single market would force us to keep our borders open, with maybe a symbolic exemption for violent criminals;
• the certain knowledge that if we were to leave and re-join, it would take a long time and we would get a far worse deal than we have now – no rebate, no opt-outs and forcible entry into eurozone and Schengen.

And how many people would vote for that? OK, a few die-hard UKIPpers, but never enough people to win a majority. So there can be little doubt that the now inevitable delays will play into the hands of the Remainers.

Yes, all the talk now is of respecting the verdict of the people and all that. And so it will remain for some time to come. But with the strong shift in public sentiment that is already under way, and set to grow, it won’t last out a run of strong Remain opinion polls.

A best-case scenario?

Of course this may not end well for the UK, Europe and the environment. But it could. If Jeremy Corbyn survives the leadership putsch now under way from the Blairite rump of MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party, he would be in a position to fight a putative general election on a powerful, progressive pro-EU platform.

This would be based on his vision of a social EU – an EU of the people, not the corporations; and a pro-environment EU, taking a lead on global warming, accelerating the transition to renewable energy economy, ramping up enforcement of environment laws, moving ahead with the creation of a ‘circular economy’, and clamping down on toxic agrochemicals.

And of course ditching TTIP, CETA, TISA and all the rotten medley of ‘free trade’ deals that hand over vast antidemocratic powers to global corporations and financiers.

That’s an election he could win, and go on to build the fairer, cleaner, greener, more inclusive Britain we so desperately need.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.

If a week is long time in politics, how long does that make three months? Answer: an archaeological epoch.

That is to say, the period that lies ahead until the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham in early October opens up giant vistas of time – plenty long enough for everything to change, completely.

And in that time, anything could happen. In fact, one of those anythings already has happened. No, I’m not talking about the Brexit vote itself, but about David Cameron’s response to it.

Before the referendum, he has promised that in the event of a Leave vote, he would instantly trigger the UK’s withdrawal by filing the Article 50 notification that sets off an irrevocable process concluding in the nullification of all EU treaties after no more than two years.

But then, Cameron did no such thing. He left that act to his successor – who would only take office at the Tory Party conference in October. Or possibly, it is now being mooted, in November. After all, surely the candidates should present themselves to the conference, giving members another month in which to ponder, and vote?

And then what’s the rush to file the Article 50 notification even then? None whatsoever, leadership favorite Boris Johnson is indicating. Let the EU stew! We will do it in our own time.

And then what if the new leader calls a general election (or indeed We The People demand one!)? That’s unlikely to take place until, say, March. Or April. Or even May. And we must surely await the outcome of the election before before filing the momentous Article 50 notification?

An extraordinary reversal

So what is really going on here? In my opinion, two things:

1. Over three months, or six months, public opinion is likely to change completely. The narrow but decisive majority in favour of Brexit that emerged in the referendum may have totally evaporated by then. It already appears to be shrinking away as the real economic implications sink in. Cameron knew this might very probably happen and, as a determined Remainer, has left the door firmly open to a reversal of the Brexit decision.

2. For the Leavers, it’s essential to secure the best possible deal from the EU. But the realpolitik says that filing the Article 50 notification is the last, not the first thing, you should do. The UK’s only real negotiating edge comes from its ability to be as awkward as possible while a full, permanent member of the EU. The moment it’s filed, they know we are out after two years no matter what. They (EU officials and other member states) can refuse to concede anything in the ‘formal negotiations’ triggered by Article 50, and after two years we are unceremoniously ejected with no come back.

So what this means, in the realpolitik, is that the negotiations start now – as in fact they already have, with EU officials and grandees, Germany’s Angela Merkel and our Boris all setting out their various positions. Only once these ‘shadow negotiations’ are complete and a deal is tied up can the UK actually file its Article 50 notification – and at that point it’s just over the lawyers to write down what has been agreed, and formal votes to follow in the EU Parliament and Council.

So in fact, it’s likely to be a very long time before any Article 50 Notice is signed – if indeed it ever will be.

But surely the UK has to leave? The People have spoken!

Up to a point, Lord Copper. First, it looks increasingly likely that there will be a general election before any final decision is made. If one (or more) of the parties stand on a ‘Remain’ manifesto pledge and get(s) elected into government, then the referendum result is trumped. And that’s something that could well happen.

But even without that, the government may in the future decide to hold a second referendum (as today urged by Lord Heseltine, backed by almost 4 million citizens) to allow the electorate to vote on the deal that has been negotiated (pre-Article 50, mediated by Angela Merkel), and all the other consequences of a Brexit that have been emerging. These are likely to include:

• no £350 million a week dividend for the NHS, or for anything else;
• slower economic recovery in the UK, fewer jobs, reduced pensions, and higher taxes;
• higher prices for fuel and other imports, and more expensive foreign holidays;
• a second independence referendum in Scotland, which the SNP would win;
• a ‘border poll’ in Ireland that could see Northern Ireland quit the UK and the Emerald Isle re-united in brotherly love;
• being stuck with all that ‘EU red tape’ we love to hate so much as a price of being in the single market – but with no power over it in the EU Council, Parliament or Commission;
• no reduction in immigration – again, the single market would force us to keep our borders open, with maybe a symbolic exemption for violent criminals;
• the certain knowledge that if we were to leave and re-join, it would take a long time and we would get a far worse deal than we have now – no rebate, no opt-outs and forcible entry into eurozone and Schengen.

And how many people would vote for that? OK, a few die-hard UKIPpers, but never enough people to win a majority. So there can be little doubt that the now inevitable delays will play into the hands of the Remainers.

Yes, all the talk now is of respecting the verdict of the people and all that. And so it will remain for some time to come. But with the strong shift in public sentiment that is already under way, and set to grow, it won’t last out a run of strong Remain opinion polls.

A best-case scenario?

Of course this may not end well for the UK, Europe and the environment. But it could. If Jeremy Corbyn survives the leadership putsch now under way from the Blairite rump of MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party, he would be in a position to fight a putative general election on a powerful, progressive pro-EU platform.

This would be based on his vision of a social EU – an EU of the people, not the corporations; and a pro-environment EU, taking a lead on global warming, accelerating the transition to renewable energy economy, ramping up enforcement of environment laws, moving ahead with the creation of a ‘circular economy’, and clamping down on toxic agrochemicals.

And of course ditching TTIP, CETA, TISA and all the rotten medley of ‘free trade’ deals that hand over vast antidemocratic powers to global corporations and financiers.

That’s an election he could win, and go on to build the fairer, cleaner, greener, more inclusive Britain we so desperately need.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.

For a couple of hours on Friday morning, for the first time ever, I felt old. At the age of 65 (nearly 66!), I am old, but I’ve never actually felt old.

All it took were a few clips of Farage, Johnson and Gove, plus interviews with the likes of Liam Fox and Neil Hamilton (exhumed from his political grave as Mr UKIP in Wales) for my spirit to start shrivelling inside me.

It wasn’t so much that the Remain campaign had lost (and by quite a big margin, whatever some are now arguing), though I was certainly feeling the pain of that, particularly for my fellow campaigners in We Are Europe, who’d put their hearts and souls into persuading their peer group to get themselves registered, get inspired by Europe, and vote IN.

It was more a cumulative despair at what the campaign as a whole had revealed about the state of our democracy. About the depths of disaffection with ‘the political class’ in the Westminster bubble in particular. About the yawning gaps between London and the rest of the country, between young and old, between rich and poor.

About the apparent inability on the part of any progressive pro-European to find an authentic way of responding to people’s deep concerns about immigration. About the demonization of ‘the Other’ recklessly let loose, despite knowing how hard it will be to contain it.

About how it took a cruel and senseless murder to bring people to their senses in terms of the way they pursued their campaign. About Project Fear vs Project Hate as the best (apparently) we had to offer voters for reasons to vote one way or the other.

About the bitterness, the invective, the endless lies. About the literally untouchable influence of a handful of neo-liberal media barons, insouciantly sacrificing the interests of the least well off in this country to reinforce their own ideological power base.

Against that backdrop, despair, briefly, seemed the only option. It felt as if every single one of the difficulties we already faced in making sustainability central to the UK’s future destiny had been multiplied tenfold – overnight! Think about those challenges:

• Addressing climate change with the urgency it now demands – with this lot running the show?!
• Redistributing the wealth of this country more equitably – with this lot?!
• Being part of a growing international movement trying to rebalance the global economy and protect human rights – with this lot?!
• Combatting crass nationalism and hateful xenophobia – with this lot?!

You get my drift. That was Friday. Today, as I write, it is Sunday. And in the intervening period, hope has crept back in, borne along on a constant flow of forward-looking commentaries, mutual support, dogged resolution, and a quality of anger informed (in Martin Luther King’s words) by ‘the hope of redemption’.

It’s not the first time for me that the incandescent coals of anger have seen off the shades of despair! What has happened through this Referendum campaign is just so wicked, with millions of people gulled into taking out their (wholly understandable) anger at the failure of our mainstream parties on the EU – the very institution that has done more than any other part of our political system to protect their rights and interests.

And it’s such an appalling outcome for young people – 73% of 18- to 24-year-olds voted for Remain. They’re left now contemplating a much more precarious future for themselves in an intolerant, divided and isolationist country that speaks to few of their values and even fewer of their hopes and aspirations.

It’s these young people who will be paying the highest price for David Cameron’s countless political misjudgements – not least his decision that the franchise for the Referendum should not be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, on the grounds that this would create ‘an unwelcome precedent’! At least he can now reflect at his leisure on what those 16- and 17-year-olds might have done to offset the inadequacies of his wretched campaign.

Two things are now already beginning to emerge from the confusion of a lost battle. First, there is now little hope for this country other than in the growing political awareness and passion of young people to help build a better world – tolerant, inclusive, fair and sustainable – not just here in the UK, but globally.

In that regard, our We Are Europe campaign was for me a ‘revelation in practice’. I’ve often acknowledged, theoretically, the ability and readiness of young people to transform our moribund political institutions and structures. But I’ve never been party to any political initiative where I witnessed this for myself, in practice, through a campaign growing in confidence and punching harder day-by-day.

It was perfectly clear to me, by polling day, that if the forlornly predictable Stronger In organisation had let our lot loose, properly resourced, from the start of the campaign, there might have been a very different result.

And might that not have been the case, by the way, if they’d chosen to use Caroline Lucas a whole lot more to help front the campaign? Her little film (see embed, below) about why Europe matters so much to all of us here in the UK – both from an historical and a future perspective – was very inspiring, and a wonderfully fitting tribute to the death of Jo Cox.

Second, it’s pretty clear to me now, at this time of unprecedented political instability, that the answer to those sustainability challenges lie not in any one party (not even in the Green Party) but in the millions of people in all parties and in no party who can see that it’s game-over for today’s failed and heartless political and economic orthodoxies. Including the two main political parties that are still mindlessly in thrall to those orthodoxies.

People have been talking about some kind of ‘progressive alliance’ ever since the 2010 General Election. If ever there was a moment where such an alliance could start coming together, and start working out a game plan to transform our political prospects between now and 2020, this has to be it.

As Jeanette Winterson said in yesterday’s Guardian: “Everything starts as a story we tell ourselves about ourselves. Every political movement begins as a counter-narrative to an existing narrative.”

I’m not quite sure what that means for me personally – but I sure as hell need to find out before I get any older!

Jonathon Porritt is Founder Director of Forum for the Future. His latest book, ‘The World We Made‘ is available from Phaidon.

In the last few months, petitions against the use of Glyphosate, one of the toxic chemicals regularly used in our towns and cities, have exploded. At last count, over 120 petitions have been started nationwide (and that is counting from just one online petition group alone). 

Across the country a whopping 78,000 people have started to get their ‘clicktavism’ on. Great news that people are starting to wake up to this un-needed and excessive use of poisons – great news too that they are getting together to start doing something about it.  But to make the change a lasting reality, it is going to take a lot more than just a petition, as all seasoned campaigners know.

For many years PAN UK has been working to stop the use of all pesticides in the towns and cities of the UK. In July 2015 we launched our national Pesticide Free Towns Campaign by creating a Pesticide Free Zone in Brighton. Our campaign wants to see a complete end to the use of all chemical pesticides in towns and cities where we live, work and play. Whilst glyphosate has been a focus due to the level of media interest it is currently enjoying it is not the only pesticide used in towns and cities. Simply switching from glyphosate to another chemical is not a success. We need to see all pesticides replaced with safer, non-chemical alternatives.

At the same time as we launched our campaign in Brighton we also rolled out a national campaign encouraging local people, organisations and groups to start their own campaigns with the idea that we could use our work in Brighton & Hove as a ‘role model’ for how to run a successful campaign.  We have successfully achieved this with a council decision in March 2016 that will see an end to the use of pesticides in the city from 2017. Hurrah, but how did we do it?

The answer is not simple and there is no magic formula because every town, council and campaign group will be different. However there are some common themes. An integral part of our approach has been encouraging you, local people, groups and organisations to start your own campaigns, and one of the key suggestions we make is to set up local petitions. These are a great way of reaching out to communities and really help to demonstrate popular support for action to councils.

Online petitions are easy to set up and have a wide reach, being easily shared through social media and other digital channels. With our help, local campaigns from Hackney, Cornwall and many other places around the country have all set up their own petitions. Never underestimate the value of a paper petition – in Brighton, for example, using this “old school” method allowed us to go into shops and cafes and actually talk to people about the campaign. It also allows you to be at events where again one to one contact with potential supporters can add a great deal of value to your campaign. This relationship building and community solidarity is a very valuable part of building a strong and successful campaign and we are encouraging people to keep doing it.

Petitions are just the first step on the road to success, however, as much more is needed to effect real change and end the unnecessary use of toxic pesticides in our public spaces. PAN UK has created a range of tools and publications that you can use to develop and win your campaign.  They include briefings on pesticide use and impacts, case studies on alternatives, guides on contacting your local council, how to hold community events and free publicity materials amongst many others.

And PAN UK wants to work with you to share our expertise, knowledge and passion to really help you win your campaign. We are available to support you through all stages of the process, including over the phone support and advice, as well as speaking at public meetings when invited. Our experience in Brighton and elsewhere means that we have tried and tested strategies for success.

But of course it is not just about motivating the public and arming them with the materials necessary for their campaigns. PAN UK is also working with councils to help them put pesticide-free commitments into action, and we are always ready to answer questions, provide advice or meet with members of local councils, their contractors and their officers.

In summary, campaigning to get the use of all pesticides stopped by your local council is more than just launching a petition. It requires a joined up approach with the right information for all concerned to be able to effect real, long-lasting change. If you care about this issue, come and join with PAN UK and let’s work together to kick the toxic pesticides out of the streets and parks, schools and pavements of the towns and cities of the UK and keep them gone for good.

Get in touch:

Website: www.pan-uk.org/pesticide-free-towns-and-cities/

Email: pesticide-free@pan-uk.org

Tel: 01273 964230

A squealing fox cub is pulled from a container in a van, then carried into a building by a man where the sound of baying hounds erupts.

A little later, the man emerges carrying the lifeless body of the cub which he dumps into a wheelie bin. He then takes another fox cub into the building …

This horror story has been captured on film released today by the League Against Cruel Sports, and we believe it shows the secret method of training young hounds to kill foxes.

The buildings are the kennels of the South Herefordshire Hunt, and three people have been arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty. An independent inquiry into the hunt has been launched.

These scenes will be shocking to most people. The cold-hearted brutality of what the footage appears to show simply can’t be defended. The pro-hunt lobby have quickly said that if the footage shows what it appears to, then this ‘has no place in hunting’.

The reality though is that this kind of thing does have a place in hunting. It is in fact an essential part of hunting, so any attempt to paint this incident as a ‘one-off’ is a desperate attempt to disguise the truth.

Training dogs to kill – against their own instincts

The League Against Cruel Sports has been undertaking an ongoing nationwide investigation‎ into illegal hunting practices using both retired police officers and local investigators – in this case the Hunt Investigation Team.

What we have been trying to expose is the ‘myth’ that fox hunts are required to control foxes. Any debate on fox hunting will see the pro-hunt defenders claiming that hunts are necessary for farmers to protect their livestock. I’m sorry, but from everything we have seen and heard, this is utter nonsense.

For starters, all those involved in hunting know of the practice known as ‘autumn hunting’. This somewhat romantic sounding activity also has another name – ‘cubbing’.

Cubbing involves the hunts taking a trip to areas where they know there will be fox cubs. The area is surrounded by those on horseback, then the hounds are sent in. Many of the hounds will be young, or ‘unblooded’, so this is their training session. Dogs won’t naturally kill foxes, so they need to be taught to do so. Huntsmen use calls and the whip to ensure the dogs do what they are meant to do.

Cubbing is extremely secretive – not surprisingly – but takes place every year among hunts across the UK. This is the ruthless true face of hunting which hides behind the apparent glamour and ceremony. Without training the dogs to kill foxes, there would be no fox hunting. We believe this is exactly what is happening at the South Herefordshire kennels.

The abuse doesn’t stop there, as our investigation has shown. ‘Artificial earths’ are basically man-made structures (small ‘dens’, or perhaps disused pipes) where foxes are taken then raised by those involved with the hunts.

They do this because for a hunt to ride without finding a fox would be poor, and would damage the reputation of the Hunt Masters. Thus the captive foxes can be released at the appropriate moment in front of the hounds to ensure a good chase.

We have the evidence. Now can we have the political action?

Some of the evidence gathered by our investigation so far includes:

• 16 fox cubs in a barn, on land linked to the Middleton Foxhounds Hunt. The League believes these fox cubs were kidnapped as a ready supply of animals to be chased by the hunt (investigation footage here).

• A fox in a disused building the League believes was being held to be hunted by the Belvoir Hunt (Investigation footage here).

• Intelligence reports implicating more than 20 hunts in capturing foxes to be hunted during 2014 and 2015.

All of this paints a very different picture to the one the hunts would like people to see. In fact, they are desperate to conceal it.

In March this year two League investigators were seriously assaulted and robbed of their cameras while monitoring the Belvoir Hunt. The alleged assault, which left one with a broken neck, is thought to have been in retaliation for one of the investigators’ discovery and subsequent release of the fox being kept in a shed on land hunted by the Belvoir Hunt. 

You cannot separate fox hunting from violence. You cannot support fox hunting without acknowledging all the evidence before us.

We truly hope that if or when the government feels like it should bow to the small but influential pro-hunt lobby and consider making fox hunting legal again, that every MP in this country stands up in opposition to this true face of hunting. 

Eduardo Gonçalves is the Chief Executive Officer of League Against Cruel Sports.