An animal is a “protected animal” for the purposes of this Act if—
(a)it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,
(b)it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or
(c)it is not living in a wild state.

Far wider than a ‘narrow defined group of pets’ I would say?

We did have guiding principles

We still do- they are called manifestos. Choose the one you like and vote for it!

You seriously think any attempt to modify legislation pertaining to animal welfare in a negative fashion would get through parliament??

*Popping back in briefly since others have shown up*

We still do- they are called manifestos. Choose the one you like and vote for it!

Michael Gove openly stated in parliament that we would “Absolutely” have Article 13 in the repeal bill and then voted against it.

Turns out you can’t trust a politician’s promises.

You seriously think any attempt to modify legislation pertaining to animal welfare in a negative fashion would get through parliament??

You mean like, for example, a trade deal with the US allowing the importation of chlorine washed chicken:

https://news.sky.com/story/liam-fox-dont-be-afraid-of-us-chlorinated-chicken-after-brexit-11108663

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/01/liam-fox-reopens-cabinet-rift-michael-gove-chlorinated-chicken/

A procedure which allows chickens to be kept in far lower living standards with poorer hygiene for chicken flocks. A practise that was banned by the EU as they felt that it was better to have good standards of husbandry and sanitation throughout the lifetime of the flock instead of just decontaminating them afterwards.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/chlorine-washed-chicken-qa-food-safety-expert-explains-why-us-poultry-is-banned-in-the-eu-a7875131.html

https://fullfact.org/europe/does-eu-say-its-safe-eat-chicken-rinsed-chlorine/

Yes, yes I do think that would get through parliament as we’ll be chomping at the bit for trade deals after Brexit and we’ll take what we can get regardless of moral and ethical objections.

Any objectors will be decried as mutineers or enemies of the people.

Absolutely. Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings. I am an animal; we are all animals, and therefore I care—[Interruption.] I am predominantly herbivorous, I should add. It is an absolutely vital commitment that we have to ensure that all creation is maintained, enhanced and protected

From earlier. So it was the commitment to recognise sentience that he felt should be included- not literally the text of article 13 IMO. It was also clarified that once they looked into it, it was a legal nightmare to anchor legislation to the text of a treaty no longer relevant to us.

The fact that with or without reference to article 13, our laws will not alter is enough reason to believe that his intentions were good on this.

From the Zac Goldsmith tweet:

The government aren’t looking to ‘get out’ of anything with this, it’s just clearly trickier than they thought when Gove was first asked the question.

If you wont trust Zac and Gove then you must be some sort of pinko commie bastard

Fake News. Ben Fogle has alreadly apologised for re-Tweeting the original “story”

From Gove below. Numerous Tory MPs stood up said the “sentinent” classification would be recorded elsewhere in UK legislation

“This government will ensure that any necessary changes required to UK law are made in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU.”

I am sure a lot of people will want to correct what they have posted in the last 8 pages:

https://order-order.com/2017/11/23/viral-animal-sentience-fake-news-story-seen-by-2-million-people/

Form a nice, orderly queue:

Form a nice, orderly queue:

Did anyone on this thread quote that Indy article?

Seemed like most of the discussion was based directly off the debate as recorded in the Hansard. Was that fake news?

Numerous Tory MPs stood up said the “sentinent” classification would be recorded elsewhere in UK legislation

Numerous? During the debate? Cite.

I see Oliver Letwin saying he’s pretty sure it’s already covered (“So far as animal sentience is concerned, I suspect we may find that there is more on that already in UK law than she is allowing”) and Dominic Raab saying “it is already recognised as a matter of domestic law, primarily in the Animal Welfare Act 2006” which Caroline Lucas rightly points out is bollocks.

What other numerous Tories spoke up?

From Gove below.

The same Gove that when asked in July “Can my right hon. Friend confirm that article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which categorises animals as sentient beings, will be part of the repeal Bill?”

Replied “Absolutely.” That Gove?

It’s great that he is making official promises to include it now – but I can’t help noticing that came after a public outcry.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/environment-secretary-confirms-sentience-of-animals-will-continue-to-be-recognised-and-protections-strengthened-when-we-leave-the-eu

The current EU instrument – Article 13 – has not delivered the progress we want to see. It does not have direct effect in law – in practice its effect is very unclear and it has failed to prevent practices across the EU which are cruel and painful to animals.

That was certainly my opinion after Grahams multiple attempts to explain it 😆
I don’t feel quite as stupid now 😀

Top evasion from Pob on the Today program this morning. The vet who spoke first made the point quite nicely – the UK AW legislation doesn’t place a responsibility on the state whilst Art 13 does. Pob didn’t manage to confirm that any proposed changes would require the state to take into account AW in relation to future policy decisions.

And excellent points made by Caroline Lucas earlier, despite the imbecile Webb’s shameful attempts to tar her with some sort of “social media nutter” brush.

The simple truth is that Gove lied, as pointed out by GrahamS above. Why would we trust him to do the right thing, if he is so willing to lie in Parliament?

“The simple truth is that Gove lied”

Presumably this is the same animal hating Gove that took animal welfare charities by surprise last month by announcing that live exports of animals would stop and sentences for animal cruelty would increase to 5 years?

http://www.smallholder.co.uk/news/15572344.Live_exports_of_animals_to_be_restricted_after_Brexit/

None of that in any way negates the fact he lied about article 13

Given that i have no idea why you wrote it.

Indeed. He could simply have replied that Article 13 would not be carried forward, but that he stood on his record as a friend of our furry fellows. Instead, his instinct was to lie. It’s about character and honesty, not about animal welfare per se.

Indy prints an apology of sorts saying their story “was not right”. The desire for instant news meant they just repeated the fake news social media posts from the campaign groups

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-sentience-brexit-vote-caroline-lucas-michael-gove-truth-fact-argument-a8072071.html

again the simply reality is Gove said unequivocally article 13 would be in and its not so he lied
Granted the coverage was poor but he still lied

What the independent said was

The Independent updated its coverage to ensure it was accurate).

“not right” is something you just made up as they never said it – which is ironic given you using this story as a example of a lack of accuracy in reporting and then inaccurately reporting.

I accept we all have party allegiances but sometimes you just have to accept the undeniable fact that article 13 is not in the exit bill when he said it would be . He lied and no amount of tory specs should prevent you from noticing this lie.

The Independent was among publishers that reported the story in that way. But it became clear that this claim was not right, even though it had been interpreted by some campaigners in that way.

From here

Was that a lie Junkyard or did you just make a mistake?

Mistake and I read it twice 😳

Sorry Jamby

SO then Gove you want to discuss him now or just sticking with party allegiances then ?

I think he made a mistake, like you did, rather than wilfully deceived or lied to the House of Commons. It is perfectly plausible that he made the assumption that as it is an article in an EU treaty and the intent of the government is to bring EU law into the Repeal Bill that it would be included. I think most people would have made that assumption. The reason it wasn’t was for technical reasons – you could reasonably argue that he should have known – but inter-departmental communication is unlikely to always to be perfect and responsibility for the Repeal Bill does not fall within his department.

Personally I think if he made a mistake, he would be better served to admit it, but the fact he hasn’t doesn’t mean he didn’t, politicians sadly seem highly reluctant to admit mistakes.

The reason it wasn’t was for technical reasons

What I’d like to know is, given that apparently everyone that spoke was in favour of animal sentience and govermental responsibility outlined in Article 13, why didn’t the debate proceed like this:

Caroline Lucas: I want to see the Withdrawal Bill recognising the text in Title II, Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty relating to animal sentience, as Michael Gove promised.

Government: Yeah that sounds good babe. We all like animals and that. But our lawyers have advised that directly referencing the Lisbon Treaty would cause a bit of legal head scratching.
So instead, how about the Withdrawal Bill just contains a copy of that text, modified for our requirements as follows: “In formulating and implementing the UK’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, parliament shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”. That sound good? It’s basically the same thing.

Caroline Lucas: Yeah, that sounds fine actually.

Government: Great. All those in favour… aye… cool. Next item…

Would that be too simple for all sides? Why make up nonsense about it being covered by the Animal Welfare Act, which it clearly isn’t? Why do the “oh we’ll do it later. Promise” thing when they could have sorted it right then.

(Apologies for repeating this point from the EU thread but this one is the right place to discuss it.) (And I know your objection mefty is more a general point about having principles encoded in legislation like a constitution. Which is fair enough, but that wasn’t the objections raised during the debate as far as I could tell).

Personally I think if he made a mistake, he would be better served to admit it

.

Yep. Quite amazing that he didn’t say something during the debate really, but as you say that’s politicians. 🙁

I think one of the reasons politicians dont admit mistakes – and its the same reason on here – is often they get even more grief for admitting it that just brazening it out [ so thanks for not giving me any]

As to why it happened in all honesty I have not followed the debate well enough to comment but it was truly horrible to listen to him squirm and ignore the question on today this morning- as you note mefty he would not be alone in taking that approach [ in either party].

Nevermind animals, we can’t even prove that human beings are conscious.

as usual your are so unkind on the ladies 😉

JUST A JOKE

[ so thanks for not giving me any]

I set that up so i could pour bucket loads of scorn on you. With your answer, you deprived me of the opportunity to do so, do you honesty think I’m thankful?

Which is fair enough, but that wasn’t the objections raised during the debate as far as I could tell

If you read Letwin’s speech his objections effectively include this argument.

Yep. Quite amazing that he didn’t say something during the debate really, but as you say that’s politicians

Not really, you are judging him with the benefit of hindsight, he was present which meant he could confirm things, I don’t think you can blame him for thinking this was anything other than a technical issue and not predicting this would become a furore – it only did because of a dishonest viral campaign.

This sentience clause business is going to allow all sort of cruelties to creatures classed as non sentient.

I’m really worried about it because some of my friends are Brexiteers. 🙂

I think the reason the Tories were all over this was in part because of the reaction to this during the election

Free vote on Foxhunting didn’t go down well with 67% of the voters

They were acutely aware that they were seen as anti-animal welfare by a massive percentage of the population. I suspect Gove being all over the media like a nasty rash this morning was in part to stop a repeat performance of that shambles.

A free vote on Fox Hunting was in the 2010 Tory Manifesto too. What’s interesting is it was in 3 Labour manifestos under Blair before they actaully put it into practice.

Gove was “all over the media” (**) to point out is was Lefty Fake News

(**) note I did nit see him on TV at all, just a few online quotes fwiw

Also it’s hardly anti-animal to want to control agressive predators, imo of course

If you read Letwin’s speech his objections effectively include this argument.

Yeah fair enough. He was actually making those objections about clause 60 & 67 but I suppose you could infer a similar argument for clause 30.

Gove was “all over the media” (**) to point out is was Lefty Fake News

Except it wasn’t. He said what he said. You just keep trying to divert the argument.