To be shocked that Tories have voted animals can't feel pain?

[brasty]

The Tory Government has outdone itself when it comes to neglecting animal rights this week – by voting that all animals (apart from humans, of course) have no emotions or feelings, including the ability to feel pain.

"Remember all that campaigning against the badger cull and May’s attempt to bring back fox-hunting? It was probably all a waste. As the Government begins to shape the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, it has taken a vote to scrap EU legislation that sees non-human animals as sentient beings. Once we leave the EU in 2019, it’s not only badgers and foxes that will be threatened by this change in law, but all animals that aren’t pets. So basically all animals that it will be profitable to exploit.

This vote comes in contrast to extensive scientific evidence that shows that other animals do have feelings and emotions, some even stronger than ours."

www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-government-vote-animal-sentience-cant-feel-pain-eu-withdrawal-bill-anti-science-tory-mps-a8065161.html

Why won't they sue if it is untrue? I would.

Ha! Grouchy, I think animal sentience is worthy of more than a quick google . The vote removes the acknowledgement of animal sentience. That's what all the politicians who weren't Conservatives or DUP voted to have remain. People are, reasonably I think, concerned that this may affect animal welfare. Organisations like the British Veterinary Association are concerned...

Right, so the question is WILL it affect animal welfare? What are the consequences of this vote? Does it actually change anything, or is it simply not transferring over legislation that is poorly thought through and could mean that things like medical research is made difficult?

The way much of the media is reporting this is that Tories have decided animals can't feel pain etc and thus their welfare is at risk, but is that really what's going to happen? Sometimes things that are voted on look bad but actually have very little consequence except to tighten up badly worded legislation. I'm not saying that's definitely all that has happened there; I am saying look at the rest of the legislation around animal welfare. Does this vote change that in any way?

The media frequently reports on political matters in this misleading way. There's very little that we can or should take at face value from any media source.

Okay so the vote DOES change things then.

And I am not stupid, I know different papers present information in different ways. But outside the tabloids, the facts in newspapers are usually true, especially if they are easily checkable and about an organisation with power.

Because there's nothing to sue about. It's a matter of political interparation.

The paper have deliberately written a piece for you to go nasty tories aren't they vile and oh look you have.

The papers with other political leanings would have gone "Caroline Lucas is mad" or as oft sighted in the American media "liberals" try to take our right to control pests away

So the facts ARE in fact true. And the worries about the possible impact, are obviously opinion.

Grouchy, what was badly worded about the legislation? I'm not talking about what the newspapers say, I'm talking about the actual legislation, that has been voted out by the Tories and the DUP. Why do you think it was removed?

But outside the tabloids, the facts in newspapers are usually true, especially if they are easily checkable and about an organisation with power.

I'm sorry but this simply is not true the guardian, times, inderpentant and telegraph are worse than most tabloids for political manipulation.

You can tell a persons political leanings by which briadsheeet they read.

Times/Sunday times Tory

Guardian/observer labour

Telegraph well that's known in the industry as the Torygraph

The inderpentant is meant to be well inderpentant but isn't!

According to the Independent's article here (not an opinion piece) the reason they voted against keeping the EU wording is that this is already covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Even the BBC which is state funded and meant to politically neautral isn't.

Don't you remember how annoyed the Cameron government were after the 2010 election from the BBCs "left wing agenda"

And I am not stupid

You say so but your posts suggest otherwise.

This is, I think, the wording in question:

"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."

What does "pay full regard to" mean? The government's argument is that this is already covered by the 2006 Act, which refers to all vertebrate animals, excluding humans.

And in the same article, Grouchy, it is pointed out by the RSPCA that this act (2006) only covers domestic animals and does not cover sentience. So were the tories misled or misleading?

@Allthebestnamesareused

Actually, if you read the list of MPs that voted 'no' they were all Tory and DUP.

No MPs from any other party voted no.

That is a shitty thing to say stupidity.

So it was a political party vote. Who is trying to mislead who in this thread?

I also would like to know what this means to UK animal protection laws.

I posted about this yesterday, its very worrying. The British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA are concerned.

I was told I was 'pushing a line'. Thing is, MP's voted for a change in the law that is likely to have a negative effect. Why hasnt anyone accused them of 'pushing a line' or having an agenda?
We wanted to keep the status quo. Its given the UK a good reputation world wide, we were seen as the leader in industry standards for farming.

They are voting on whether or not to keep the EU Human Rights Act today.

Grouchy, I believe "full regard" refers to the 5 freedoms. See above re: 2006 legislation.

I think you'd need to be a lawyer to be able tease out the limitations on section 1 of the Act.

So the facts ARE in fact true

Can you clarify what those facts actually are then please? Between your "animals can't feel pain" & the trainees article I've become confused.

What is the issue and, more importantly, what is your AIBU??

If the British Veterinary Association are concerned then I would think it is something to be concerned about.

Sorry, mardy, I can't see the 5 freedoms?

I feel I should make clear that I neither agree nor disagree with the government's decision to vote against this amendment. I don't understand the full implications of it, I just object to the way the Independent has phrased their coverage.

I've just found this in the explanatory notes so I wonder if that's what the government is talking about.

Here's the text:
The Act will apply only to vertebrate animals, as these are currently the only demonstrably sentient animals. However, section 1(3) makes provision for the appropriate national authority to extend the Act to cover invertebrates in the future if they are satisfied on the basis of scientific evidence that these too are capable of experiencing pain or suffering.

Aren't UK animal welfare rules generally tighter than the EU laws anyway? What difference will this actually make, in practice?