Animal Rights after the Brexit Repeal Bill

Willing to believe that the government will not agree to the Lucas vote because ‘it doesn’t believe in animal sentience’ when we know that it is simply not that at all.
It has been explained exactly why it was turned down but durhamjen as usual wants to make a case out of it.

I don't think she's read it, nightowl. She certainly hasn't understood it.

You know the answer to that nightowl ?

I don’t understand your post lemongrove. How is durhamjen ‘willing to believe anything’? I think what she has posted is a very clear explanation of the reasons behind Caroline Lucas’s proposed amendment. Do you just want to make this personal instead of trying to understand the argument?

In your haste to hate anything that has to do with leaving the EU durhamjen you are willing to believe anything.
Give it up!

What a shame that many EU countries treat their animals so badly then hey?

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

"It is sophistry to claim that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 definition of sentience in animals is the same as that in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty.The Lisbon Treaty declares that animals are sentient beings without caveat - “since animals are sentient beings ”.There is no loophole which allows it to be argued that a particular animal within a particular context is not a sentient being.

Whereas the UK Animal Welfare Act 2006 deliberately introduces a loophole of “If an animal is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, it is sentient and therefore afforded protection under that Act”. This clever phrasing, then allows it to be argued with false argument i.e.sophistry, that a particular animal in a particular set of circumstances does not feel pain and suffering, and is therefore not sentient under the meaning of the act.

This is not a hypothetical point. In many actual circumstances those responsible for causing animal suffering, such as those who hunt Foxes, Deer and Hares have tried to argue that the animal does note xperience pain and suffering. These arguments are documented at length in say the Burns Report into Hunting (2000). What this false argument (sophistry) exploits is that it is impossible to prove what another mind experiences, especially when that other mind is a non-human animal, and has no way of explaining what it experiences. "

Of course it does, Maisie, if you say so.

it imposes and insists.

CountryFile this evening:

'Britain has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world'

Long may it continue and let us lead the way, improve where improvements are needed and show others the way.

So the EU laws are just a suggestion, a guideline.

Oh, come off it, Nfk, the iron fisted EU doesn't suggest; it imposes and insists.

Well, that's the narrative I'm hearing from the anti-EU hysterics...

I gather there’s a clause in the EU law which allows countries to follow their local customs. So the EU laws are just a suggestion, a guideline.

Yes POGS that's what I meant in my last post on here.

Day 6

Yes it is the crux of the matter and it is not restricted to just this story.

I think however Joe Public are starting to understand there is a lot of ' activism ' , ' propaganda ' muddying the waters and are starting to check facts for themselves.

The French are the same! Our butcher tells us that practises that are outlawed with regard to the display of meat, slaughtering, animal husbandry an a host of other regulations are just shrugged off and turned a blind eye to. French farmers are a law unto themselves and not to be provoked by government or anyone else. We have had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of a farming dispute in France!! Not a happy experience!

I don't think other EU countries take animal welfare as seriously as we do in UK. Some years ago there were new EU rules about abattoirs. Many in UK closed down because the cost of implementing them would have been too great. We owned property in Spain at the time and knew someone who worked in a abattoir there, I asked him how the new rules would affect his job -he shrugged his shoulders and said they would just ignore them. This is something which sometimes happens - UK implements the new rules and practices - other EU countries pick and choose which ones they will follow.

I live in a farming community (I am not a farmer myself) and have seen how the local farmers care for their animals. If we all stopped eating meat what do you think would happen to all the cows, sheep, pigs etc. etc.

their lack of integrity in happily passing on misinformation.

S--t sticks I suppose so 'job done' in their eyes whether it is this story or others it will matter not one jot.

Yep. This is the crux of the matter POGS

*'most supporters' should read 'most commentators'.

What do we believe if not a report in a respected national newspaper?

The whole furore has been dismissed as fake news.

It's very worrying how news and even 'non news' can be twisted and of course with social media and the public having their say, mountains can be made out of grains of sand. (A molehill would suggest there was something to build on, but often there is nothing earth-moving) Before we know it, minor things have become massive with half the country in a state of simmering outrage. All without much foundation, but that won't stop media with an agenda fanning the flames.
So much we are reading and hearing about has been distorted by a biased source. News reporting has become so flimsy with most supporters claiming to know EVERYTHING is a disaster.
My cousin's husband is a professor and he says the only way he can find peace of mind and less stress is to stop watching the news and avoid the papers and online news feeds. He says he is sticking to novels as fiction is more satisfy given the 'truth' today is hard to discern. He made me laugh.
I think he has a point!

What concerned me most was thinking that the Govt wanted to water down EU regulations just for the sake of it. That if they started with animal rights then the next thing to be watered down would be workers' rights, maternity leave etc.

If this is not the case then I am very happy to have been proved wrong.

What do we believe if not a report in a respected national newspaper?

Usually so POGS but I think in this case it has shown up how easily people are prepared to believe what they would like to believe, and it has made the media look ridiculous.
This kind of thing will happen more and more though.
False news spreads like Chinese whispers and we should all be on high alert to it.

At least some have retracted their tweets/comments and to be honest I wonder about the RSPCA and playing politics at times.

At the end of the day this is just another chip paper story that was 'jumped on' by some but has in fact made the story about them and their lack of integrity in happily passing on misinformation.

S--t sticks I suppose so 'job done' in their eyes whether it is this story or others it will matter not one jot.

Everyone has to make up their own mind if faced with this dilemma and they can do their own research on a particular drug and how it was researched and trialled then make a decision whether to accept or refuse it.

Methods are being developed that involve less use of animals in cancer research. The animals should be cared for by qualified staff, including vets, and subject to inspections.

Trials will still need to be carried out using animals for the foreseeable future, followed by clinical trials with human volunteers, often for a number of years before a drug is given its licence.