Brexit undoubtedly delivered significant wins for animals, enabling coverage modifications that have been beforehand inconceivable. We have been ready, for instance, to ban the merciless reside export of animals for slaughter and, much more far-reaching, we might change the best way we subsidised farming to incentivise greater animal welfare and environmental stewardship.
Neither of those modifications might have occurred with out Brexit, which is among the causes I supported our EU exit in 2016.
And though, in fact, I want we had accomplished extra, the final Conservative authorities did ship a variety of animal welfare measures – from an expanded ivory ban and banning glue traps, to a lot greater sentences for animal cruelty and recognising sentience in regulation. Now in Opposition, the get together is asking for amongst different issues elevating zoo requirements.
Final month’s UK-EU Summit produced a “Frequent Understanding” settlement, which has been hailed by the Prime Minister as a major step in direction of mending post-Brexit relations, producing financial advantages and streamlining commerce. Nonetheless, buried within the particulars lies a troubling dedication: any UK deviation from EU meals requirements should not “negatively have an effect on European Union animals and items being positioned in the marketplace in the UK”.
This seemingly technical clause has profound implications for animal welfare and our capacity to lift our personal requirements, one thing we fought so exhausting to realize with Brexit. Amongst different issues, it doubtless means the UK can not prohibit imports of animal merchandise that fail to satisfy our welfare requirements – even after we’ve banned those self same practices domestically.
Think about the speedy threats. Round 50% of UK pork imports come from EU international locations nonetheless utilizing sow stalls – slender steel cages we banned within the 90s as a result of they have been thought-about to be merciless. The final Labour authorities prohibited fur farming within the UK, but we proceed importing it from the EU. Underneath the brand new settlement, banning such imports could also be inconceivable, regardless of the said needs of the Authorities to ship the most important enhance to animal welfare in a era.
The settlement hyperlinks UK requirements to EU animal welfare guidelines, with opt-outs restricted to public well being and biosecurity assessed on a case-by-case foundation. So whereas we’d nonetheless have the ability to ban pet imports, as these current a public well being threat, the settlement might block us from banning EU fur and even foie gras on welfare grounds alone.
This not solely undermines home animal welfare requirements but additionally locations British farmers, who adhere to stricter rules, at a aggressive drawback.
The issue is extra acute with EU imports, our largest buying and selling accomplice for meals imports, not simply the standard suspects just like the USA or Australia.
Brexit gave us the possibility to guide the world on animal welfare – to point out that an unbiased Britain might set gold requirements that others would observe. That is additionally about democratic sovereignty. British voters constantly assist greater animal welfare requirements, with 84% backing restrictions on low-welfare imports.
There’s nonetheless time to place this proper, however it would require Authorities to make clear that animal welfare measures fall outdoors the SPS Settlement’s scope, or to barter specific exceptions for welfare-based restrictions.
Whereas its proponents say the UK-EU reset settlement presents financial and diplomatic advantages, it’s crucial that animal welfare stays a precedence. By addressing these issues proactively, the UK can place itself as a world chief in animal welfare and make sure that progress isn’t achieved on the expense of probably the most susceptible and the unvoiced.
