Skip to main content

HS2: Despite Supreme Court Setback:

The Green Party will continue to support the anti-HS2-protesters in their ongoing battle.

Following their legal victory in the Supreme Court today (22 January), the Government has vowed to "press ahead" with HS2.

The Court dismissed accusations (1) by objectors that the Government was "cutting corners", by failing to carry out an environmental assessment and in breach of European environmental laws, so as to push the estimated £50 billion project through Parliament. 

The campaigners now plan to take their case to the European Court.


Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said:

"The issue considered by the judges was a narrow legal one and the political questions, of whether the environmental and financial costs of HS2 can be justified, are yet to be answered.

"This case has focused on critically important environmental issues. But there's also an important question, which research has indicated must be answered in positive: even on purely financial grounds, can this money be spent better?"


Green Party Transport Spokesperson, Rupert Read, added:

 "We earnestly hope that Europe will help to stop this wasteful scheme from devastating large chunks of lovely British countryside. You can count on Green MEPs to stand by the anti-HS2 campaign, which unfortunately is being cold-shouldered by every other political party.

"The Green Party is THE party of public transport" he said, adding that "The huge sum of money that the government is proposing to throw away on HS2, for the sake of shaving minutes off rich people's commute from Birmingham to London, could be far better spent on revolutionizing our transport systems in this country."

ENDS

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25839958

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more