All it says is that the policies they make will consider the welfare of animals, but they recognise they must also respect the laws and cultures of member states

You might as well have just copied and pasted the quoted text…

The extent to which animal welfare laws can override those cultural practises or vice versa, is a matter for further and ongoing debate

So we’re back to it being meaningless bollocks!

TL;DR, but I’m honestly having trouble understanding how it’s important to keep EU legislation that allows open torture of animals for entertainment, as Spain does.
The UK banned the likes of badger baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting etc years ago, yet EU legislation allows bull fighting, so how would things be different?

..does the European law mean that religious principles take precedence over animal welfare in this instance?

I don’t think it is hypocritical. I think it rightly recognises that the paradox exists and calls it out into the open as part of the principle.

The rest is up to lawmakers and politicians to debate and sort out.

I think I’m having a change of mind. I’m inclined to agree that Article 13 as quoted above doesn’t fit into the way Britain should be run on or after Brexit.

The existing UK legislation is what we’ll be left with after Brexit, which allows these religious practises.

I don’t think the Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes any mention of slaughter methods or transportation for instance. It does have a general section on “unnecessary suffering” (as well as docking tails, fighting, and prize goldfish).

This is where the EU are quite clever. They get to look all progressive to the hand wringing worry-alots then stick in an all inclusive get out clause for their shoddy mates in the dingiest corners of the EU but because the UK bigots don’t view them as ‘Tories’ they get away with it over here. Well good riddance!
I’m sure there’s enough busy body know it alls with enough Twitter power to hold the government to account and make sure welfare standards remain world class- and all for free too 😆

It’s a funny old game when people who want rid of the EU for meddling in our laws are complaining about the EU not forcing laws onto member states. 😕

UK bigots don’t view them as ‘Tories’ they get away with it over here.

Two points:

1) are you suggesting it wasn’t Tories that rejected this clause? Because it looked that way to me. No ‘bigotry’ involved there.

2) the Tory party were, not so very long ago, massively in favour of EU membership.

No, but read the thread. The anti-Tory bile is disgusting.

I don’t think the EU should have forced anything on anyone but I bet they didn’t come up with the law for free. Total waste of money.

The anti-Tory bile is disgusting.

You think that’s bad – you want to see what the papers say about Remainers. Enemies of the people, mutineers, put them in the tower, heads on stakes.

And that’s before you even get to the death threats from the general public.

Total waste of money.

So you are, again, saying they did nothing and completely ignoring the quote about:

“Eighty percent of current animal welfare legislation comes from the EU”

I’m not saying that some legislation isn’t desirable and necessary though merely that in this instance; getting hung up on the word ‘sentient’ is totally irrelevant because they also include an escape clause to justify doing whatever you want to animals.

It’s a pointless ‘what if’ but if we hadn’t joined the EU, we would have still been trading with them so we would have had to have had some kind of similar legislation to get access to their market. So the fact 80% of it came from the EU is ONLY BECAUSE WE WERE IN IT. If it had been created at home, it would have given jobs to UK lawyers and been a lot cheaper no doubt!

The world has moved on, the EU hasn’t so flexibility is key as we forge our own way once more. Tying ourselves to some pointless semantics that a)achieve no desirable outcomes for animals on an EU scale and b)may limit our future options is foolish in the extreme.

crosshair – Member
No, but read the thread. The anti-Tory bile is disgusting…

Sorry about that, but I tend to get a bit worked up about a govt whose policies are killing so many of our poor weak and vulnerable.

What was it claimed in the papers the other day? 120,000 over the last 5 years of austerity deaths?

Even 10,000 would be too many.

So yes, bile.

No, but read the thread. The anti-Tory bile is disgusting…

You ok Hun?

The world has moved on, the EU hasn’t

😆

I’m not saying that some legislation isn’t desirable and necessary though merely that in this instance; getting hung up on the word ‘sentient’ is totally irrelevant because they also include an escape clause to justify doing whatever you want to animals.

Surely it’s better than nothing at all, which is what they’ve replaced it with.

Small steps and all that. Perfection is the enemy of the good etc..

getting hung up on the word ‘sentient’ is totally irrelevant

Okay so ignoring the “sentient” part for a moment, what about the general principle that any policies and laws we make should “pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”?

So the fact 80% of it came from the EU is ONLY BECAUSE WE WERE IN IT.

Yes I agree.

And in fact the first thing Caroline Lucas did while discussing this clause was point out that it was the UK that convinced the rest of the EU to include this clause and to recognise that animals were sentient!

Quotes from her:

By way of background, in 1997—20 years ago—the UK Government, during their presidency of the EU, convinced the then 14 other member states that EU law should explicitly recognise that animals were sentient beings, and not simply agricultural goods like bags of potatoes that could be maltreated with impunity.
..
The resulting protocol, which came into force in 1999, changed how animals were regarded and ensured that future EU legislation was not implemented on the basis of the lowest standards of animal welfare, but that it took animal sentience into account. That understanding has since informed more than 20 pieces of EU law on animal welfare, including the ban on sealskin imports, the ban on conventional battery cages and the ban on cosmetics testing on animals.
..
The Government have rightly and commendably committed to transferring all existing EU law on animal welfare into UK law under the Bill, but because the text of the Lisbon treaty is not transferred by the Bill, the wording of article 13 on animal sentience will not explicitly be incorporated into UK law. As things stand, despite having one of the longest-standing animal welfare laws in the world—something of which we are rightly proud—the UK has no legal instrument other than article 13 of the Lisbon treaty to provide that animals are sentient beings.

Full debate here

So we ARE world leaders in animal welfare. We do set higher standards for ourselves than the rest of the EU. And all of that good work is undermined by the EU and the ‘unless you are culturally disposed to animal cruelty’ get out of jail card for the rest of Europe.

As I say, with us- world leaders in high animal welfare standards don’t forget- on the outside, the world has moved on and until the shape of the new world order is apparent, it seems ludicrous to cable tie our hands.
No doubt we will continue to set the bar high in all future negotiations- whoever they may be with.

And all of that good work is undermined by the EU and the ‘unless you are culturally disposed to animal cruelty’ get out of jail card for the rest of Europe.

And that will be fixed by us leaving Europe and no longer being able to try to influence European policy?

Or will it be fixed by us ditching that inconvenient animal welfare principle the very first chance we get? Does that set a good example to those other countries?

No doubt we will continue to set the bar high in all future negotiations- whoever they may be with.

That being the case, why would we want to drop recognition of the sentience of animals?

How does recognising sentience, in any way, “cable tie our hands” in future trade negotiations where we want the same or better animal welfare than we have now?

Because in the context of the whole piece of legislation- it’s totally undermined and completely irrelevant!

“Ah yes, we recognise animals are marvellous sentient beings, aren’t we wonderful human beings! Pardon? You want to stick a sword in one and chase it to a bloody and protracted death? No problem my friend! We can cater for you too!”
What’s important is the action on the ground, not a meaningless word.

We don’t want to drop the implications that the word sentient should carry with it but neither do we want to get hung up on it.

Because in the context of the whole piece of legislation- it’s totally undermined and completely irrelevant!

Or does it possibly interfere with what you do? You seem very worked up on what you see as a piece of irrelevant legislation.

Not at all! I just get fed up with unchallenged remoaning 😉

I’m under no doubt about the sentience of animals- we care for enough of them 😆

The anti-Tory bile is disgusting.

& well deserved it is too!

“Ah yes, we recognise animals are marvellous sentient beings, aren’t we wonderful human beings! Pardon? You want to stick a sword in one and chase it to a bloody and protracted death? No problem my friend! We can cater for you too!”

Then surely that is the part that shouldn’t be replicated into UK law, not the part about sentience?

That part is redundant because we won’t be making laws that challenge “the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States”.

Sounds inefficient to me. Just ditch it and make something fit for purpose as and when required in the future. In the meantime, let our existing and amply adequate law take the slack. Simples 🙂

In the meantime, let our existing and amply adequate law take the slack. Simples

The implication is that our existing law is amply adequate. As Caroline Lucas said:

..It is not good enough to claim that animal sentience is already covered by UK law by virtue of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 since the protocol is not even explicitly included or referred to in that Act and the word “sentience” does not appear anywhere in it.

The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. For those reasons, I intend to press new clause 30 to a Division.”

Simples

Someone using Simples, and quoting breitbart in another thread…the irony.

It was the first link that illustrated my point- I’m not fussy 😆

Look, let’s stick to arguing the topic hey? Although people lashing out is a good sign that the crux of your argument is weak.

Graham- So you were happy with the EU law WITH the cultural and religious clause but not with the far more pragmatic AWA 2006?

Blind ‘EU GOOD- TORY BAD!’ behaviour no?
If AWA 2006 needs amending in the future to address a specific situation where animals not being treated as sentient is causing welfare issues, then that’s one thing.
To get hung up on a word that has no applicable significance given the rest of the wording of the law- just seems pointless??

Caroline Lucas-

The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. “

Is also wrong!

AWA is all inclusive.

The welfare of all farmed animals is protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal. The Act also contains a duty of care to animals – anyone responsible for an animal must take reasonable steps to make sure the animal’s welfare needs are met.

The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 set minimum standards for all farm animals. These regulations replaced the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 on 1st October 2007. The new regulations are made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and are very similar to the previous regulations.

Although people lashing out is a good sign that the crux of your argument is weak.

A Breitbart reading Gamekeeper wanting to get rid of EU laws on animal welfare shocker.

I thought I’d just get to the point.

Just thinking out loud here, but setting aside the word ‘sentient’, the suggestion seems to be that we could do better than the EU legislation by, for example, getting rid of the bit about respecting religion or tradition – that’s the bit people are referring to when talking about stabbing bulls with swords and chasing them to death I presume?

So where would that leave the Government (the Tories specifically) with regards to men and women on horseback galloping through the countryside in pursuit of a fox to watch it get ripped to death in the name of sport? I presume ‘doing better’ would mean that any future debate about lifting the ban would be dead in the water?

As an aside, didn’t Boris describe the push to ban bull fighting in Spain as political correctness gone mad?

Graham- So you were happy with the EU law WITH the cultural and religious clause but not with the far more pragmatic AWA 2006?

Two different things, as I understand it.

The EU wording is a Principle, designed to inform the development of other laws and policies (i.e. it is from Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Part 1 – Principles: Title II – Provisions having general application”)

As a guiding principle, I think it is fine and I understand why it is worded as it is (as discussed previously).

The AWA 2006 is an act of law, and is obviously far more prescriptive and exacting, going as far as to state “animal” means a vertebrate other than man… [not] while it is in its foetal or embryonic form.. “vertebrate” means any animal of the Sub-phylum Vertebrata of the Phylum Chordata and “invertebrate” means any animal not of that Sub-phylum.

To answer your question, I was happy with the AWA (which implements specific protection for some domesticated animals) with the knowledge that there was also a general principle that allowed us to challenge new legislation that could be deemed harmful to animals.

I don’t read Brietbart thanks, I linked it to illustrate a point that was being ignored.

At no point have I argued against the need for robust and effective animal welfare legislation though? In fact I think some of my points have done the opposite- highlighting inadequacies in the wording of the EU law.

I get great results at what I do precisely because I treat the animals in my care with respect for their sentience thanks. The fact my charges are free to wander off wherever they please is testiment to their needs being met- I wouldn’t have any otherwise 😆

So where would that leave the Government (the Tories specifically) with regards to men and women on horseback galloping through the countryside in pursuit of a fox to watch get ripped to death in the name of sport?

Yes, that is a clear example of “customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage” part that crosshair objects to and I’d agree with him on that, it shouldn’t be allowed.

I think some of my points have done the opposite- highlighting inadequacies in the wording of the EU law.

Again, it is a Principle in a Treaty, not a law.

Apart from the fact that fox hunting is not comparable with the Bull fighting case…. so I definitely didn’t say fox hunting shouldn’t be repealed 😆

(And Gamekeepers are the traditional enemy of the fox hunting landowner so I don’t say that lightly 😆 )

fact that fox hunting is not comparable with the Bull fighting case.

Think you might want to look up what “fact” means rather that “sentience” .

I definitely didn’t say fox hunting shouldn’t be repealed

Eh????

But that is exactly the kind of cultural tradition and regional heritage get-out clause that you were complaining about in the EU treaty!!

In fact, given that the UK Gov apparently proposed that Principle, it is probably a significant factor in why that wording was included in the first place!

It is also highly relevant to the discussion, because the AWA doesn’t protect wild animals such as foxes.

Graham- No, I don’t think it is. Foxes are wild and one hunted ethically dies. Quickly.

Bullfighting, baiting and fighting of other animals and some religious practices take an animal exclusively in your care and subject it to undue and unnecessary suffering.

The fact you can legally hit a wild animal (including old foxy) with your car and not have to ensure it is speedily and humanely followed up and dispatched is proof that people don’t really care about treating wildlife with the same stringent regard as animals solely in a humans care.

Any malpractice by hunts that questions the wildness of said fox or indeed the ability of it to escape capture to its full ability would then bring it in line with fighting and baiting in my mind.

But as pest control, finding a wild fox with a scent hound and killing it with overwhelming strength of numbers is absolutely ok.

Pest and predator control is always going to feature in our managed farmscape so a method should be judged by its effectiveness not the voting intentions of those carrying it out.

Ok, so the fox ‘hunted ethically’ dies quickly? But only after being chased in fear of its life and the point of desperation/exhaustion by a baying pack of hounds. Im afraid that sounds a lot like inflicting undue necessary suffering to me.

*editted to remove unhelpful sarcasm.

Hilarious, though after losing he argument on the facts (since not all animals are sentient anyway) I suppose that switching back to good old class war and trying to turn the debate around to fox hunting (which, they may have forgotten, is widely practiced in several European countries despite their all conquering ‘sentience’ legislation) was inevitable

Just wait till they read what the ex-director of the League Against Cruel Sports has to say about the hunting ban 😀

Foxes are wild and one hunted ethically dies. Quickly.

Does it? I was under the impression that hunts went on for some time.

…subject it to undue and unnecessary suffering.

A bit like chasing a wild sentient animal with a pack of hounds until it is cornered or too exhausted to run, and then ripping it to pieces? For fun.

..so a method should be judged by its effectiveness not the voting intentions of those carrying it out.

That pesky Will of the People eh?

Apart from the fact it isn’t suffering- provided it is free to escape to the best of its ability as I’ve already qualified.
A healthy fox on home territory with unstopped earths will make hounds look foolish every time.
And if it’s earths are unstopped, it will soon be to ground where it can be dispatched anyway. (Humane terrier work is still legal don’t forget).
That is highly specific and targeted pest control that far and away beats the alternative of shooting every fox you see until you get the ‘problem’ one.

I love how much people care about the 10-12,000 foxes killed by hunts pre ban compared to the 100,000 maimed and squashed by vehicles. Or does getting places in a hurry and getting stuff delivered from Amazon or making sure the supermarket shelves are stocked all fall under the cultural tradition and regional heritage get-out clause too 😉

Do give over ninfan.

There is no switching going on here.

Crosshair has argued for most of the day that the good work of the treaty was fundamentally undermined by “the ‘unless you are culturally disposed to animal cruelty’ get out of jail card for the rest of Europe”

So him revealing that he is a supporter of fox hunting, which definitely falls under that same cultural or regional tradition clause, but notably isn’t covered by the Animal Welfare Act, is highly relevant to the discussion.

…after losing he argument on the facts (since not all animals are sentient anyway)…

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall anyone being declared a winner or loser.

…switching back to good old class war…

No mention of class anywhere that I can see.

…trying to turn the debate around to fox hunting…

My mention of fox hunting was a genuine question as to how it would stack up against our apparent ability to create better legislation by removing the cultural/traditional/religious get out clause.