You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
crosshair: you can't really compare killing an animal by accident to deliberately hunting one with a pack of hounds.
It's pretty obvious why people are not required by law to dispatch an animal they hit with a car: Imagine a car stopped on a busy A road whilst an elderly pensioner wrestles to put an injured stag out of its misery using a rolled up Reader's Digest and a bag of Murray Mints. 😆
Just to qualify Graham- what you are emotively describing is not what I endorse. Protracted hunting for entertainment has had its day. That said- watching hounds figure out the line of a fox is fascinating and there's no reason people shouldn't go and watch- providing that their amusement isn't the raison d'être.
I think it's one of the most misleading myth's that the kill is anything other than a sideshow to a day's hunting anyway. I know plenty of people who've hunted for years and never seen one. Getting access to cool jumps on private land is the main one for most horsey types and watching the hounds draw the coverts the appeal for most of the foot followers.
However, what I think a constructive repeal should allow and what I disagree falls under the cultural heritage loophole is the use of hounds in highly targeted pest control.
So fox welfare is important when it suits??
If the same pensioner hit a dog they would be guilty of an offence for not reporting it (or a horse, or an ass and some other stuff if I remember rightly!)
Here's one for you my friends 🙂
Are the prey of domestic cats classed as sentient beings??
I guess you're going to have to decide whether Felix's feline right to exhibit natural behaviour trumps that of a wild animal to get a quick and humane death 😆
Another genuine question here for you Crosshair (unlike Ninfan seems to suggest, this isn't point scoring or anything like that, I'm genuinely interested): you mention the legal requirement to ensure an animal solely in a human's car is dispatched if hit by a car, whilst this doesn't apply to wild animals, and that this proves people care more about domesticated animals than wild. Firstly, I didn't know there was a distinction (every day's a school day and all that); but secondly, the law seems to suggest that it only applies to dogs, goats, horses, cattle, donkeys, sheep and pigs but no other domesticated animals i.e. no requirement to report hitting a cat. (And besides, the legal obligation is to report, not dispatch). Doesn't that suggest that the distinction is there for animals that have some monetary value to the owner as opposed to emotional value?
(Incidentally, this is a real tangent away from the OP's post so apologies!)
Sorry, I didn't mean that you have to dispatch a domestic animal you hit but you do have to take responsibility for it. Whereas you are free to mow down wildlife with impunity 😆
I think Cats are exempt because if they weren't, people would have to take better care of their actions (as in the moral dilemma I posed for you guys above) 🙂
Here's one for you my friendsAre the prey of domestic cats classed as sentient beings??
Hmmm...a curve ball! The obvious answer is that yes, of course the prey of a domestic cat is a sentient being (unless the cat is thick as mince and likes chasing rocks). But before you do what I think you're about to do and draw the comparison between a cat exhibiting its natural behaviour of hunting, and a dog exhibiting its natural behaviour by chasing a fox, remember that we don't deliberately keep cats to watch them decimate the local song bird population.
No, that's not where I was going. More along the lines of- if you come down 8hrs after you last saw your cat and find a blackbird with one leg and half a wing hopping around your kitchen- are you responsible for it??
Whereas you are free to mow down wildlife with impunity
Not that I want to 'mow down wildlife with impunity', but isn't the distinction that someone owns a domesticated animal and has a financial interest in it the reason why it has to be reported? By definition, you can't own wildlife.
remember that we don't deliberately keep cats to watch them decimate the local song bird population.
But now you mention it, is 'keeping the mice population down' a legitimate reason for ownership of a Cat ?
Not that I want to 'mow down wildlife with impunity', but isn't the distinction that someone owns a domesticated animal and has a financial interest in it the reason why it has to be reported? By definition, you can't own wildlife.
Yes, absolutely. Welfare of the animal isn't the primary driver but if the owner of the animal subsequently took it home and let it die in the garden/field in prolonged agony- they would be liable for prosecution under AWA2006. However, nobody has to take the same responsibility for a wild animal with the same injuries inflicted upon it in the same manner.
Surely that's an omission if we think foxes etc are sentient? Somebody should take responsibility for these 100,000 very questionable deaths each year. Yet I don't see many balaclava clad warriors down the side of the M4 after the night freight has done its damage!
Am I responsible for the cat? Yes. The actions of the cat? Yes. The sorry state of the bird? Yes. For making a decision regarding the most humane course of action to deal with the bird (humane despatch / vets etc)? Yes.
As for keeping the mice population down, I'm pretty sure that's not the main reason why people keep cats so it's a moot point. In fact, God knows why people keep cats...
On that note, as fun as this is, I have a work deadline approaching so TTFN.
Am I responsible for the cat? Yes. The actions of the cat? Yes. The sorry state of the bird? Yes. For making a decision regarding the most humane course of action to deal with the bird (humane despatch / vets etc)? Yes.
So at what point does your right to choose to unleash your Cat into the environment- given its known history as a bird slayer/maimer differ from that of a huntsman choosing to cast off his hounds?
Provided the huntsman is right with his hounds when they kill to ensure a quick clean death, how is this any more irresponsible or less compatible with the rights of wildlife as sentient beings than the cat owners actions- given that the average cat owner has no idea what their beloved pet is up to and what pain and suffering it is inflicting when they hear the cat flap rattle??
Provided the huntsman is right with his hounds when they kill to ensure a quick clean death, how is this any more irresponsible or less compatible with the rights of wildlife as sentient beings than the cat owners actions- given that the average cat owner has no idea what their beloved pet is up to and what pain and suffering it is inflicting when they hear the cat flap rattle??
you might have a point if the owner was following the cat round the garden giving it encouragement and cheering every kill then smearing the birds blood on the faces of their children. 🙄
you might have a point if the owner was following the cat round the garden giving it encouragement and cheering every kill then smearing the birds blood on the faces of their children.
Ah so it's not actually a cruelty issue with you personally then- just a cultural prejudice??
Cruelty by cat owners is acceptable because it's done in passive ignorance??
Ah so it's not actually a cruelty issue with you personally then- just a cultural prejudice??
Nope the difference is the cat owner is not making a sport out of it. The cat owner is not taking enjoyment in the misery and suffering of the bird.
So you’re trying to equate a huntsman who breeds hounds with the express intent of hunting foxes, who encourages them to pick up a scent of a fox and chase it, and who encourages the hounds to kill said fox with someone who owns a cat primarily, I’m guessing, for reasons other than catching birds/mice etc? There is quite a clear distinction between the two so I don’t really see your point.
(Second time lucky, I'm retiring from this debate as I have work to do and I really must resist the urge to see what the reply is!)
Nope the difference is the cat owner is not making a sport out of it. The cat owner is not taking enjoyment in the misery and suffering of the bird.
And nor do hunters. Hence my distinction between fox hunting and baiting.
Do you not see the hypocrisy here? The Cat owner is ACCEPTING misery and suffering of wildlife whereas an ethical hunter goes out of their way to avoid it.
The sport in fox hunting disappeared long ago but it's credentials as an essential tool for pest control still remain (hence the legal exemption for hunting with two hounds).
So you’re trying to equate a huntsman who breeds hounds with the express intent of hunting foxes, who encourages them to pick up a scent of a fox and chase it, and who encourages the hounds to kill said fox with someone who owns a cat primarily, I’m guessing, for reasons other than catching birds/mice etc? There is quite a clear distinction between the two so I don’t really see your point.
There isn't a distinction for anyone pursuing the moral argument in my opinion. Both are deliberately risking the death of a sentient being. The difference is, one is doing so responsibly with due regard for the speed and efficiency of the kill and one is doing so in at best, naive ignorance and at worse wilful disregard for the situation that is likely to unfold.
that is the worst justification i have read in a while
One has a cat that may or may not do something to other living things and the other is someone who breed dogs specifically to hunt foxes to their death which they will do with them for fun
I wish you the best of luck convincing folk....you are going to need it
So 275,000,000 prey items needlessly killed and maimed in the name of human companionship are morally irrelevant?
Yet 10-12,000 foxes are an ethically repugnant crime against sentience??
Stripping back the cultural prejudices, please tell me why one is morally acceptable in relation to the non-essential death/suffering of a sentient being and one not??
Are you saying if I kept a fox hound and let it out at night unattended you wouldn't care if it killed a fox or not??
It’s all an irrelevance
Fox hunting was banned, remember
crosshair - Member
So 275,000,000 prey items needlessly killed and maimed in the name of human companionship are morally irrelevant?...
Full marks for brilliant whataboutery.
I'm impressed by your concern for animal welfare, I presume you're a vegan.
It's not whataboutery though. It's moral equivalence. And that's crucial in a discussion about how we treat wildlife in the context of law.
Apparently the hateful Tories were hoping to drop sentience from the animal welfare discussion to enable their sick hunting fetishes but actually, they were just mindful that 8 million cat owners are in fact evil criminals if we follow the appliance of the sentience argument to its logical end point 😆
It's moral equivalence.
Uh oh.
One has a cat that may or may not do something to other living things and the other is someone who breed dogs specifically to hunt foxes to their death which they will do with them for fun
Which are still nothing to do with the meaningless legislation that is the topic of this thread?
💡
meaningless legislation that is the topic of this thread?
Agree:
[i]"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, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage."[/i]
If we leave we won't be formulating EU policies so we don't need a law to tell us how to do so, which presumably is why the mainstream media didn't bother with the (non-)story.
I'd be very interested in what the case for leaving it in was? Or were they arguing for leaving it in but heavily amending it?
that is the worst justification i have read in a while
They are all pretty bad because there is no justification. You can justify why you need to control a population but you can't justify the method.
Crosshair is right, cat owners are collectively guilty of wanton ecological genocide. Cats kill wildlife like Nazis kill Jews. The Germans were collectively guilty as **** in regards to the Nazis, why shouldn't cat owners be?
We can clearly see that they are evil, as evidenced by the following picture.
[img] 
[/img]
Thus it stands to reason that the only solution to the cat question is
They are all pretty bad because there is no justification.
Article 13 specifically states the justification:
respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage
So yeah, we might think blood sports are bad, but if countries have hunting/sport fishing/falconry/bull fighting as part of their legislative /administrative provisions or customs or religious rites or cultural traditions or regional heritage then it's justified according to Article 13.
So relating all this back to the original article in the OP, it seems a total non-issue.
We have learned-
Article 13 already allowed all the things people are claiming the Tories are seeking to bring in with the pesky word 'sentience' out of the way.
By definition, Article 13 can't apply if we're not in the EU.
The RSPCA were being disingenuous with their descriptions of the impact Article 13 has had on forming animal welfare policy in Europe.
If you run over a mans ass you must report it.
Cat owners are worse than fox hunters.
/thread 🙂
So 275,000,000 prey items needlessly killed and maimed in the name of human companionship are morally irrelevant?
Funny how so many people deny it. The distinction of the moral argument lies in the acceptance: the fox ‘hunter’ is actively seeking the death of the animal; the cat owner accepts that the animal they home will kill an undetermined number of other animals. I’m not particularly interested in which is ‘worse’ - one could really argue either way with some substance.
The Germans were collectively guilty as **** in regards to the Nazis, why shouldn't cat owners be?
Well, yes, in a sense. The collective guilt (some prefer to call it responsibility) has remained strong in German socio-politics and informs many attitudes and decisions. As Edmund Burke said so long ago:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
[quote=outofbreath ]Article 13 specifically states the justification:
Read back a bit in the thread if you haven't already oob, we've been round the loop already discussing the wording of Article 13 and the "get out clause".
[quote=outofbreath ]presumably is why the mainstream media didn't bother with the (non-)story.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/11/how-brexit-could-strip-your-pets-their-rights
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/animals-should-never-be-treated-as-our-equals-f5gbrsvdl
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/mps-voted-animals-cannot-feel-pain-emotions-brexit-debate/
[quote=outofbreath ]I'd be very interested in what the case for leaving it in was? Or were they arguing for leaving it in but heavily amending it?
Full debate is here:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-11-15a.475.0
Basic argument is that without Article 13 we have no guiding principle in our legislation that animals should be regarded as sentient and that our laws and policies should thus take proper regard of animal welfare.
Caroline Lucas makes a good case for it. The counter-case from Dominic Raab seems to be: we agree, sounds good, but it's okay, it's covered by the Animal Welfare Act. Which is blatantly untrue as that act doesn't mention sentience and only covers domesticated animals.
[quote=crosshair]We have learned-
Article 13 already allowed all the things people are claiming the Tories are seeking to bring in with the pesky word 'sentience' out of the way.
Again, 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.
[quote=crosshair]By definition, Article 13 can't apply if we're not in the EU.
Practically none of the EU legislation applies once we're not in the EU - the whole point of the "copy-paste bill" is to replicate it into UK domestic legislation, amending the wording as required.
[quote=crosshair]The RSPCA were being disingenuous with their descriptions of the impact Article 13 has had on forming animal welfare policy in Europe.
As were Farming UK, British Vets Assoc, Compassion in World Farming, the Green Party and Michael Gove?
And not forgetting that pesky "80% of current animal welfare legislation comes from the EU" stat.
Graham S:
Caroline Lucas makes a good case for it. The counter-case from Dominic Raab seems to be: we agree, sounds good, but it's okay, it's covered by the Animal Welfare Act.
There was more from Raab, and it sadly concluded the (very brief) debate. His stated contention was that the clause* would risk 'legal confusion'.
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
*As I'm not sure if or not Lucas' proposed Clause 30 embodied the whole of article 13 (including the regard for tradition and religion) or simply the regard for sentience - I'm now actually on the fence without that knowledge. It was discussed so summarily as to effectively not be discussed at all. At least we have STW!
The vote split (sorted by party): 😯
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2017-11-15&number=40&showall=yes#voters
A big PS - f anyone takes the time to read that whole session especially the bulk regarding (sic) envisioned (sic) policy on the environment on exit - 😐
It was discussed so summarily as to effectively not be discussed at all. At least we have STW!
Yep, we've literally discussed it in more depth here than they did in the parliamentary debate.
Which is a bit crap really, but that's the crux of the issue: they have a metric crapload of legislation to copy-paste and very little time to debate it properly.
^ agreed, if by 'very little time' you actually mean 'darkly comic, farcically f***all' time'.
The future is so bright I have to now wear blinkers. Having made the time to actually read the entire debate (at 5am this morning) - I'm now left with an overwhelming, increasing fondness for the late, great Terry Pratchett and his 'Disc World' series.
Read back a bit in the thread if you haven't already oob, we've been round the loop already discussing the wording of Article 13 and the "get out clause".
Whoops, missed all that. Wasted my time. 🙁
Basic argument is that without Article 13 we have no guiding principle in our legislation that animals should be regarded as sentient and that our laws and policies should thus take proper regard of animal welfare.
We never did, this applies to makers of EU Policy, not UK law.
Plus, as you say:
Article 13 doesn't allow or disallow anything.
We never did, this applies to makers of EU Policy, not UK law.
Indeed, but as noted, 80% of our animal welfare laws come from that EU policy.
So if that is no longer a driver then we could do with the equivalent in our legislation to influence our post-Brexit policies.
Indeed, but as noted, 80% of our animal welfare laws come from that EU policy. So if that is no longer a driver then we could do with the equivalent in our legislation to influence our post-Brexit policies.
Great, so we're agreed article 17 isn't appropriate for that because it doesn't apply when making UK law.
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 [i]domesticated[/i] 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, [url= http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-1-principles/title-ii-provisions-having-general-application/150-article-8.html ]Article 8[/url] in the same section says [i]"In all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women."[/i]
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 [i]"you must write laws to protect all animals from everything"[/i], it says [i]"you must consider animal welfare when writing laws and policy"[/i].
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 [b]EU[/b] policy[b] unless for pretty much any reason you don't want to[/b]".
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.
[i]"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, "[/i]
= "when writing laws and policy"
[i]"since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, "[/i]
= "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 [i]"on the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering"[/i], 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 [i]have[/i] 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 [i]should[/i] 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
(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?"
[url= http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2017-11-15&number=40&showall=yes#voters ]The Tories (and the DUP mercenaries) voted unanimously against it[/url] while the other parties voted unanimously for it.
That's not Tory bashing. That's just what happened.
[img] 
[/img]
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 [b]requires [/b]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. ([url= https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-11-15b.475.0 ]Read the debate[/url]. 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 [u]removing[/u] 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 [s]bend over and lube up[/s] attempt to compete on a world stage.
I'll let Zac Goldsmith answer that one.
https://twitter.com/zacgoldsmith/status/932924262373093377
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?
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.As we have established...blah blah blah
oot