Originally from: mona parr
                        
Please support the call to include the protection of animals against avoidable, senseless cruelty as an objective in a future EU Constitution :
<A HREF="http://animals-constitution.info/">http://animals-constitution.info/</A>

The European Convention is a body preparing the draft of a future EU Constitution. It consists of 15 representatives of the heads of state or government of the EU member states, 30 representatives of the national parliaments, 16 members of the European Parliament and 2 representatives of the European Commission, amongst others (<A HREF="http://european-convention.eu.int/">www.european-convention.eu.int/</A>

Three examples showing the negative consequences of animal welfare having no constitutional ranking at European level:
Since, pursuant to the present EC Treaty, animals fall under the free movement of goods, they are subjected to cruel transports across Europe lasting for days. Each year, about 250 million animals must endure these journeys, many of them starving to death or dying from dehydration during transport. The export refunds granted by the EU for the export of live cattle, rather than of frozen meat, into countries outside the EU are an additional incentive to adhere to this practice. A revision of the refunding policy, which is opposed by a growing number of EU citizens for both ethical and economic reasons, could considerably, and quickly, reduce animal transports.

 The »Herodes« premium introduced, above all, for market-regulation purposes and paid for eliminating newborn calves was considered a scandalous and unethical waste of tax money also by tax payers not committed to animal welfare. Owing to the free movement of goods within the EU, some EU member states not implementing this practice, such as Germany, were not able to prevent calves born in Germany from being exported alive to France where they were killed and burnt for the premium.

 Furthermore, the recognition of the »non-vaccination and culling« policy to control the foot-and-mouth disease as established in the judgment of the European Court of Justice dated 12 July 2001 is questionable not only in ethical terms: anyone who takes animal protection seriously also in terms of preventive protection against risks will consider the legal situation allowing such judgments as intolerable and in need of change.