MPs vote 'that animals cannot feel pain or emotions' into the Brexit bill - sign petition to reverse

[IlonaM]

'MPs have voted to reject the inclusion of animal sentience ? the admission that animals feel emotion and pain ? into the EU Withdrawal Bill.

The move has been criticised by animal rights activists, who say the vote undermines environment secretary Michael Gove?s pledge to prioritise animal rights during Brexit.' Read more here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-latest-animal-sentience-cannot-feel-pain-emotion-vote-mps-agree-eu-withdrawal-bill-a8064676.html

Please sign and share petition: https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-repeal-the-government-decision-to-exclude-animal-sentience-in-the-eu-withdrawal-bill

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks Ilona ,have signed and shared .

[dbboy]

How about priortising people's rights.

[curlylocks]

Also signed and shared.

[Jenny1]

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How about priortising people's rights.

Last time I checked the two things weren't mutually exclusive.

Thanks Ilona. Have signed and shared.

[edhistory]

Where is the text of what MPs are said to have voted for?

[uncleglen]

This is the Animal Welfare section

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

Since when have all these things been adhered to or enforced?

[Loz]

My understanding is that the EU Withdrawal bill is just to provide a mechanism to port EU legislation to UK Law - it doesn't list any particular law/s that will or won't go through.

So, apart from an exercise in political point scoring, I'm not sure why the amendment was tabled.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My understanding is that the EU Withdrawal bill is

> just to provide a mechanism to port EU legislation

> to UK Law - it doesn't list any particular law/s

> that will or won't go through.

>

> So, apart from an exercise in political point

> scoring, I'm not sure why the amendment was

> tabled.

No, the government are porting across the parts of EU law they wish to keep as part of our law, dropping parts they don't want; the government have chosen to drop the 2009 clause recognizing animal sentience in the transfer. Amendment clauses are anything but mere political point scoring, they are what will shape the entire structure of UK society and institutions once we leave the EU.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> No, the government are porting across the parts of

> EU law they wish to keep as part of our law,

> dropping parts they don't want;

That's not what the bill does - it just defines the mechanism they will use. If you think otherwise, my challenge would be name one other EU law that is specifically named in the bill.

> Amendment clauses are anything but mere political point scoring, they are what will shape the entire

> structure of UK society and institutions once we leave the EU.

They can be and, indeed, usually are. I agree they are an important part of the parliamentary process. But they can also be pure point scoring.

[edhistory]

Can anyone locate a source for the amendment itself?

Someone who signed the petition must have read it.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's not what the bill does - it just defines

> the mechanism they will use. If you think

> otherwise, my challenge would be name one other EU

> law that is specifically named in the bill.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000. Job done.

On the particular animal rights issue, the government have indicated that they intend to use the powers conferred by the act to remove the animal sentience clause from UK law. The amendment attempts to stop this. Where else would you suggest that MPs could introduce a block to the government doing this?

[intexasatthe moment]

edhistory - I believe this

?Obligations and rights contained within the EU Protocol on animal sentience set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty shall be recognised and available in domestic law on and after exit day, and shall be enforced and followed accordingly.??(Caroline Lucas.)

This new clause seeks to transfer the EU Protocol on animal sentience set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty into UK law, so that animals continue to be recognised as sentient beings under domestic law.

is the ammendment that was proposed and voted against

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-11-15b.475.0

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0005/amend/euwithdrawal_rm_cwh_1110.15-21.html

[edhistory]

Thank you.

It is always good to go back to the source rather than rely on journalists.

[ianr]

What's an NPS? (col.486ff) https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-15/debates/7A700C0E-8BA2-4EEC-B53D-997028C06900/EuropeanUnion%28Withdrawal%29Bill

[rendelharris]

National Policy Statement - used to set out environmental and transport policies. Issued after public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny but not (as far as I'm aware) as legally binding or rigorous as an Act of Parliament.

[keano77]

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where is the text of what MPs are said to have

> voted for?

It appears to be, or had been if the OP is correct, amendment 350. It can be viewed at Page 65 of the following PDF

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0005/amend/euwithdrawal_daily_cwh_1120.pdf

Tuesday 21 November 2017

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL) BILL

Jeremy Corbyn

Mr Nicholas Brown

Keir Starmer

Jenny Chapman

Matthew Pennycook

Paul Blomfield

Vernon Coaker

Catherine McKinnell

Ms Harriet Harman

Ann Coffey

Matt Rodda

Mike Gapes

Angus Brendan MacNeil

Clause 7, page 6, line 18,? ? at end insert?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 350

?(g) fail to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.?

Member?s explanatory statement

This amendment holds Ministers to the animal welfare standards enshrined in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

This proposed amendment does not appear in the list of notices withdrawn by November 14 at the end of the bill.

Not sure if or when it was voted on and defeated.

[keano77]

Ah, I see intexasatthemoment has also posted details of a different amendment relating to clause 4

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > That's not what the bill does - it just defines the mechanism they will use. If you think

> > otherwise, my challenge would be name one other EU law that is specifically named in the bill.

>

> The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000. Job done.

Well, I sort of concede that, since I said 'named' - though I would also point out that is a Charter, not a law. But I think you also understand what I am saying - this is not a bill that seeks to port the laws, just define the mechanism. Singling out particular laws has no place here.

> On the particular animal rights issue, the government have indicated that they intend to use

> the powers conferred by the act to remove the animal sentience clause from UK law. The

> amendment attempts to stop this. Where else would you suggest that MPs could introduce a block to

> the government doing this?

Well, that is precisely why it should NOT be done here. The issue you point out is a failing of the entire process - in that it circumvents parliament. Instead of the Greens trying to point score on their pet issue (pun intended), maybe it would be better to try and fix the huge, massive, gigantic procedural problem with the bill itself?

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, that is precisely why it should NOT be done

> here. The issue you point out is a failing of the

> entire process - in that it circumvents

> parliament. Instead of the Greens trying to point

> score on their pet issue (pun intended), maybe it

> would be better to try and fix the huge, massive,

> gigantic procedural problem with the bill itself?

Eh? I entirely agree that the bill is an attempt to circumvent Parliament with its "Henry VIII" provisions - in this instance members of Parliament (not just the Greens, as it happens, in Parliament, and outside Parliament the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association and Compassion in World Farming) have spotted an attempt by the government to change the law without debate and have taken the opportunity to attempt to block them. It will, presumably, be the first of many such actions. The absurdity of offering the government of the day carte blanche to alter laws as they please has been pointed out continuously by all opposition parties but how, precisely, is this to be altered as long as the government plough ahead with their DUP chums?

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, by the way, has had full legal status in the EU since 2009, and is, therefore, law.

[Burbage]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The absurdity of offering the

> government of the day carte blanche to alter laws

> as they please has been pointed out continuously

> by all opposition parties but how, precisely, is

> this to be altered as long as the government

> plough ahead with their DUP chums?

Will of the People, innit?

The DUP support will evaporate soon enough. Whatever the Tories decide on the Irish border, it'll annoy the DUP. The only decision that wouldn't is no decision at all - the apparent 'hard border' consequence of 'no deal'. But even if we hit 'no deal' IRE, the EU or a majority in NI won't stand for that.

Effectively, any solution involves NI becoming at least partially independent of UK. As the Conservative and Unionist Party and DUP won't go for that, as their names imply, it won't happen with them in charge.

So, as things stand, it will be up to a different government to adopt the Varadkar proposals. But by that time, the Brexit clock will have rung, leaving our laws in tatters and every other aspect of Brexit - citizens' rights, divorce bills and trade agreements - blowing in the wind. For Her Majesty's Opposition is aiding and abetting the anti-democratic power grab just as cravenly as the DUP.

In short, Brexit is a very bad thing indeed, and it'll be just as bad under Labour as the Tories, for people, animals and everything.

[Loz]

Indy admits their original report was a load of rubbish.

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

"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."

Though I'm still not sure what it was doing in the bill in the first place.

[Jenny1]

It's not really that simple though, is it?

I see the government's error here as one of omission, not commission - but that's not reassuring. For me the central issue illustrated is that one couldn't trust these people to post a letter - let alone undertake the mammoth legislative task ahead of them.

[edhistory]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not really that simple though, is it?

Why?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents

[Jenny1]

None of that is in conflict with EU legislation is it?