Very few EU laws or policies are wholly appropriate for post-Brexit UK without tweaking the wording a bit. That’s the entire point of the copy-paste EU Withdrawal Bill being debated.

If we don’t put in something, either a reference to the treaty clause or an agreed amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, then we lose that protection when we brexit.

But I thought we established that the ‘cultural’ bit of the article rendered it impotent anyway?

So we are worried that we no longer have an ambiguous guidance document to influence our laws that are already in place?

Today, we are subject to AWA2006. With the article on the scrap heap, we are still subject to AWA2006 no?

But I thought we established that the ‘cultural’ bit of the article rendered it impotent anyway?

No we didn’t establish that. You suggested it. I explained why I thought it was there: to help frame the competing factors in the debate.

I’d suggest that, unless the UK is suddenly going to become waaaaaay more radical about animal rights, any equivalent principle adopted in domestic legislation would use very similar weasel words.

we are still subject to AWA2006 no?

Which gives protection for domesticated animals and pets, but says nothing about sentience or a general principle of considering animal welfare when making policy and law.

Article 13 doesn’t allow or disallow anything. It is a guiding principle in a treaty. It exists to be discussed and debated while defining laws and policies.

then we lose that protection when we brexit.

Please reconcile these two things for me. Why do we need a treaty to debate something and how can a document that doesn’t expressly allow or prohibit something provide protection?

Surely this is the exact sort of bureaucratic nonsense we are aiming to improve on by Brexiting.
We don’t need to be told to include sentience in a debate on animal welfare- we were the very people who fought for its inclusion in the first place!!

Please reconcile these two things for me. Why do we need a treaty to debate something and how can a document that doesn’t expressly allow or prohibit something provide protection?

We don’t need a treaty. No one is suggesting keeping the entire Lisbon Treaty just so we retain a mention of animal sentience.

What we do need is either a reference to that very specific principle in the Lisbon Treaty or a copy-paste-edit of that principle into UK domestic legislation.

(As Michael Gove expressly promised we would before voting against it)

Why do we need it? Because having it part of legislation means that proposed policies or laws that negatively impact animal welfare can be more robustly challenged on the basis that they violate that principle.

We don’t need to be told to include sentience in a debate- we were the very people who fought for its inclusion in the first place!!

Please reconcile these two things for me. We thought it so important that we fought for it to be included, but we don’t need it?

We need it in principle in law (which by dint of the fact it was not amended after it’s inclusion in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty- AWA2006 must provide 😉 ) but we don’t need it somewhere else to tell us how to think!

Without the lowest common denominators of Europe to worry about, we can create laws with proper debate around whatever subjects our democratically elected representatives see fit.

What animal is being protected by Article 13 today that won’t be if we Brexit without it in place?

We need it in principle in law

We agree.

(which by dint of the fact it was created under the guidance of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty- AWA2006 must provide

It doesn’t.

Without the lowest common denominators of Europe to worry about, we can create laws with proper debate around whatever subjects our democratically elected representatives see fit.

Aaaah gotcha. So we only needed it because of those filthy foreigners and their vile ways?

But the fine upstanding British don’t need such ridiculous laws, as we’d never allow things like battery farmed chickens, badger baiting, cock fighting, fox hunting..

What animal is being protected by Article 13 today that won’t be if we Brexit without it in place?

*sigh*

Article 13 doesn’t provide direct protection. It is a PRINCIPLE. It guides debate on other laws and policies.

For comparison, Article 8 in the same section says “In all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women.”

What equality is actually protected there? None. It is a statement of Principle. New laws and policies can be challenged on the basis that they violate that principle. Debate ensues. Democracy happens.

So as current members, how are we able to function legally and trade freely if our law isn’t robust enough to meet the criteria laid out in Article 13?

Why hasn’t AWA2006 been amended if adherence to the treaty is so important?

Because it doesn’t say “you must write laws to protect all animals from everything”, it says “you must consider animal welfare when writing laws and policy”.

it says “you must consider animal welfare when writing laws and policy”.

No it doesn’t.
Stop making things up.

If it did, then it might not be so meaningless.

Because it doesn’t say “you must write laws to protect all animals from everything”, it says “you must consider animal welfare when writing EU policy unless for pretty much any reason you don’t want to“.

Corrected the sentence for you. 😀

In spite of all the words I think we’re all in agreement here. Article 17 means very little to EU nations. It means literally nothing to a non-EU nation. However, there’s no real harm in putting some similar platitude in Uk legislation to apply to future UK legislation.

That’s how I read it sbob.

“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, “

= “when writing laws and policy”

“since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, “

= “consider animal welfare”

No? Where do we differ on that?

However, there’s no real harm in putting some similar platitude in Uk legislation to apply to future UK legislation.

Good. Then yes we are in agreement.

Motion carried.

Next item please speaker. 😆

And we can consider animal welfare without a law directly referencing ‘sentience’ right? So it’s direct inclusion in a document somewhere is irrelevant right?

Otherwise- why don’t we already have the word ‘sentient included in UK law??

why don’t we already have the word ‘sentient included in UK law??

I don’t know.

Perhaps since the UK Gov insisted it was in the Lisbon Treaty they felt that covered it?

The AWA seems more focused on whether the animal is a member of the Sub-phylum Vertebrata of the Phylum Chordata.

Though it does say that an appropriate national authority may “extend the definition of animal so as to include invertebrates” but only “on the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering”, which I think some people would describe as ‘sentient’.

In an interesting turn of events, 100% of warm-blooded mammals polled rejected the notion that Conservative politicians are in any way sentient and capable of empathy.

*size of sample, three mammals in my house.

capable of experiencing pain or suffering”, which I think some people would describe as ‘sentient’.

Not at all. It’s nothing to do with pain. Dictionary definition of sentient is: “able to perceive or feel things”.

Tulip heads follow the sun throughout the day. They must be able to perceive/feel the sun. I doubt tulips feel pain. (But I don’t know, does anyone?)

Good. Then yes we are in agreement.

Too many facts spoil the wrath. 😀

So has the treaty encouraged any member state to enhance animal welfare?
Do any EU members include the word sentient in their legislation?
If our laws won’t change because of this- why is this perceived as being a backwards step? NOTHING WILL HAVE CHANGED!!

Ludicrous! Pointless layers of meaningless drivel.

Ludicrous! Pointless layers of meaningless drivel.

Agree, maybe it’s brexiteers doing a false flag operation spreading this on FB to draw attention to Article 17.

I certainly wouldn’t have been aware of Article if this fuss hadn’t been whipped up and it certainly doesn’t show the EU in a positive light.

Dictionary definition of sentient is: “able to perceive or feel things”.
Tulip heads follow the sun throughout the day. They must be able to perceive/feel the sun

Are you arguing that plants are sentient?

Do you think we need plant welfare laws? 😯

So has the treaty encouraged any member state to enhance animal welfare?

Yes other member states have enhanced their animal welfare because they have been subject to EU policies and directives that were created with reference to the principle in Article 13.

If our laws won’t change because of this- why is this perceived as being a backwards step? NOTHING WILL HAVE CHANGED!!

YES IT WILL!!eleven

Prior to leaving the EU we are subject to EU policies, directives and standards on things like agriculture, trade and the environment which can all impact animal welfare. The principle in Article 13 is used when creating and debating those policies.

After leaving the EU and ‘taking back control’, we’ll be making up our own policies, directives and standards, but we won’t have that principle enshrined in our legislation to guide and challenge them.

You’ve already agreed that we should have an equivalent in our legislation – which was literally the point of the debate. So I’m not sure what your current argument is?

Pointless layers of meaningless drivel.

Meaningless drivel that has been recognised across the world and has been the foundation for creeping improvements in animal welfare across the EU and its trading partners.

the foundation for creeping improvements in animal welfare across the EU and its trading partners

Cite.

My point is, we have debated our laws and set our standards. Full stop.

If we suddenly decided to stay in the EU, would AWA2006 stop being the law? No. Will it stop being the law when we leave? No.

Nothing will change.
Can we debate sentience in parliament? Yes.
Will any future changes to law be held to account and voted on over it’s recognition of the word sentient? Yes.
Are we free to vote for people who support the views that best represent our own opinions on the word sentient? Yes!

WTF is the point of this treaty other than (and I wince a little bit here) Virtue Signalling??!!??

“Aren’t we great! We fought for the word Sentient to be included in the treaty!”
“Ah well done! I guess the law will have to change now then?”
“Nah, we’ve done our bit and enshrined the sentience of animals in a treaty, aren’t we awesome!!”
“So has anything practical changed?”
“No but look- it’s in the treaty!! Animals can rejoice!!!”
“Yeah but Bull fighting?”
“Sorry, I’m busy Tory bashing right now, what did you say?”

Etc etc.

Farcical!!!!

Cite.

https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583114/IPOL_STU(2017)583114_EN.pdf (particularly the section “INTERNATIONAL EFFECTS OF EU ANIMAL WELFARE POLICIES AND LEGISLATION”)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/index_en.htm

https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3818623/eu-law-on-the-welfare-of-farm-animals.pdf

https://www.globalanimallaw.org/database/europe.html

My point is, we have debated our laws and set our standards. Full stop.

Many of which are EU standards which we will no longer be bound by.

Can we debate sentience in parliament? Yes.
Will any future changes to law be held to account and voted on over it’s recognition of the word sentient? Yes.

In case you hadn’t noticed, parliament is a bit busy at the moment. When exactly is it likely to get around to debating new laws on recognising animal sentience and regarding animal welfare?

The entire point of the copy-paste bill is to try to fill any holes left in legislation when we leave the EU by copying suitable EU legislation into our own.

This is a pretty clear example of where such a hole was identified, the responsible minister (Michael Gove) promised in parliament that it would “Absolutely” be filled by copying the equivalent article in the Withdrawal bill and then later voted against doing just that.

“Sorry, I’m busy Tory bashing right now, what did you say?”

The Tories (and the DUP mercenaries) voted unanimously against it while the other parties voted unanimously for it.

That’s not Tory bashing. That’s just what happened.

But the law doesn’t need to be changed!!??!!

What EU LAW are we bound by with regards to sentience that we won’t be by tearing up this Article?

We seem to have devolved our very souls to the EU! The implication is that without the Brussels Bible to live by, we’ll suddenly implode!!

The Tories (and the DUP mercenaries) voted unanimously against it while the other parties voted unanimously for it.

They were right. The people arguing that after we leave the EU we should have a policy for how we create EU law were wrong. This isn’t an argument about policy, it’s basic English Comprehension, and the Tories and DUP called it right.

What EU LAW are we bound by with regards to sentience that we won’t be by tearing up this Article?

Not sure if I’ve mentioned this before, but the article doesn’t define a law, it defines a principle by which other laws are guided.

So tearing up this article removes that guidance. Not a law.

If you want to know what laws there are, then refer to the links above that cite the various EU directives on animal welfare.

Those directives are debated in the context of that Article.

If we are to copy those directives into our legislation (which is the stated plan) then it would be useful to also have the guiding principle behind them in our legislation when it comes time to debate them.

The implication is that without the Brussels Bible to live by, we’ll suddenly implode!!

No. The implication is that it is much easier to challenge something if you have a relevant guiding principle in your legislation.

1997 The European Union’s Protocol on Animal Protection is annexed to the treaty establishing the European Community. The Protocol recognizes animals as “sentient beings” (rather than mere property) and requires countries to pay “full regard to the welfare requirements of animals” when making laws regarding their use.

From Malvern earlier in the thread.

So in 2006, we paid “full regard to the welfare requirements of animals” as directed by the treaty and created AWA2006. Which is our law. Which will still be our law when we leave. Which isn’t due to be debated had remain won.

What am I missing here!!??!! Other than not being a signatory on some ethereal document, NOTHING WILL HAVE CHANGED!

They were right. The people arguing that after we leave the EU we should have a policy for how we create EU law were wrong. This isn’t an argument about policy, it’s basic English Comprehension, and the Tories and DUP called it right.

That wasn’t the argument that they made. (Read the debate. It won’t take long.)

And it isn’t a correct argument as almost all the legislation we copy in the Withdrawal Bill need some rewording to fit the new situation.

That wasn’t the argument that they made.

Thanks.

What am I missing here!!??!!

The content of my posts?

NOTHING WILL HAVE CHANGED!

Yes it will, as I have patiently explained, repeatedly, with no attempt at acknowledgement or counterpoint from you.

It seems that without any solid logical argument your aim has been to run around in circles as fast as you can with you fingers in your ears in the hopes that the dogs get tired.

Well you’ve succeeded. I’m tired. We’re at 234 posts and I suspect everyone else has long since stopped reading this thread.

Please consider yourself the “winner” by default.

I’m off to murder a kitten.

With respect Graham, you haven’t explained at all how the day to day lives of animals will be negatively impacted by not having Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty in British law.

Dominic Raab seems like a logical sort of chap!

The reference to animals as sentient beings is, effectively, a statement of fact in article 13, but even though it is, in effect, declaratory, I can reassure Caroline Lucas that it is already recognised as a matter of domestic law, primarily in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. If an animal is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, it is sentient and therefore afforded protection under that Act.

We have made it clear that we intend to retain our existing standards of animal welfare once we have left the EU and, indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made clear, to enhance them. The vehicle of this legislation will convert the existing body of EU animal welfare law into UK law. It will make sure that the same protections are in place in the UK and that laws still function effectively after the UK leaves the EU.

In this country—we should be proud to say this—we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and we intend to remain a world leader in the future. Leaving the EU will not prevent us from further maintaining such standards; in fact, it will free us in some regards to develop our own gold-standard protections on animal welfare. Animals will continue to be recognised as sentient beings under domestic law, in the way I have described. We will consider how we might explicitly reflect that sentience principle in wider UK legislation.

To tack on to the Bill the hon. Lady’s new clause, which simply refers to article 13, would add nothing, however, and she was fairly honest in her speech about the limited practical impact it would have. Given that it is ultimately fairly superfluous, it risks creating legal confusion. Obviously, if she wants to propose improvements to wider UK legislation—I am sure she will, knowing her tenacity—she is free to do so, but this new clause is unnecessary, and it is liable only to generate legal uncertainty. Having addressed some of her concerns, I hope that she will withdraw the new clause, having powerfully and eloquently made her point.

He pretty much says what I’ve said no?

Please consider yourself the “winner” by default

I have you down as the winner if that counts for anything towards the amount of time you have spent on it 🙂

christ what a painful read, props to GrahamS for services to patience, arguing with idiots, chess and pigeons etc.

I can’t be arsed to read all of the last four pages.

Has any of the Nasty Party Usual Suspects come up with a reason for removing the term ‘sentient’ from legislation? One that holds water?

Or is it as most sensible people suspect – a part of our race to the bottom as we bend over and lube up attempt to compete on a world stage.

I’ll let Zac Goldsmith answer that one.

No, MPs did not vote that animals aren't sentient @Benfogle @domdyer70 @DeborahMeaden @sueperkins pic.twitter.com/eQLz6plfa9

— Zac Goldsmith (@ZacGoldsmith) November 21, 2017

As we have established, no legislation has changed. The law has not changed. The legal status of animal sentience has not changed.

I’ll let Zac Goldsmith answer that one.

A Zac Goldsmith tweet is almost by definition, scraping the bottom of the barrel. I wouldn’t trust him to hang out washing. Is that the best you can come up with?

As we have established…blah blah blah

we have not established, AWA 2006 covers a narrow defined group of pets, We did have guiding principles, the Tories said they would continue, and then lied, so now we don’t anymore as GrahamS has relentlessly pointed out, you’ve ignored, and not produced a valid counter argument.

oot