ntially theoretical and optimistic. In practical reality, the extensive workload necessary to overcome the complex challenges will cripple any opportunity for progression. Moreover, on the contrary, not only beyond this, not only may advancement of the state of the environment be made more difficult by virtue of Brexit, there lies the possibility that UK legislation may actually stagnate or in fact and become regressive. This is because, as Fisher suggests, environmental law is an inherently multi-jurisdictional and transnational enterprise, and so, co-operation is mutually beneficial to improve environmental standards. In light of this, the Government’s ambition to leave the environment in a better place than they found it will, in reality, be made more difficult as a result of Brexit.

An Optimistic Approach

As Burns submits, it is in fact extremely difficult to find the true correlation between EU membership and the progression made over time to UK environmental standards. This is primarily because these improvements are often due to numerous factors which are difficult to disentangle; therefore, it is not always possible to say with complete certainty that developments would not have happened over time regardless.

In fact, the UK has actually provided integral pivotal leadership in some key policy areass of environmental policy; for example, the UK. A key example of this is the UK’s input to EU climate change policy, in which the UK’s 2008 ’s 2008 Climate Change Act has been particularly significant in forming EU climate change policy. Therefore, in respect to climate change, it has been argued that the loss of EU climate regulatory schemes which aid in achieving carbon budgets could result in domestic governmental structures assuming responsibility. As such, Brexit may represent a real opportunity for more innovative climate governance in the UK by freeing it from a pan-European framework which is not necessarily fit for domestic purposes.

Brexit may, thus, act as a catalyst for environmental improvements by encouraging clarification of legislation currently is scattered across various EU Directives and regulations. By As the EU’s reigns on the UK to loosening, the Government may be able to embrace a more forward-thinking approach and adopt more comprehensive domestic policies. This could provide an opportunity to move away from the economic market-based policy which presently acts as a driving force behind EU environmental protection. By potentially rejecting the intrinsic economic agenda of the EU, UK environmental policy could be liberalised to enact a philosophy more respectful of natural resources and habitats.

Why should we doubt this view?

Whilst these arguments stand some ground, there are in fact some indications that the view that improvements will be made easier as a result of Brexit is unrealistic. Whether or not the Government chooses to adopt the ‘Norwegian model’, a more distanced kind of ‘Canadian model’ or a ‘no deal’ approach, Britain will encounter a number of challenges which present as stumbling blocks to the Government’s targets.