麻豆约拍

The 'reform treaty'

• Mark Mardell
• 19 Jun 07, 09:00 PM

A meeting of top civil servants in Brussels to discuss the German draft of a new treaty is still going on. Much later than expected. And much less leaky. I certainly expected to have seen a copy by now. As I haven鈥檛, it's difficult to make sense of the titbits I have heard. It's 11 pages long and would be called 鈥淭he reform treaty鈥�.

As I understand it:

• The name foreign minister is dropped - but there鈥檚 no suggestion of an alternative

• The European Parliament and Commission wouldn鈥檛 get any more powers over foreign affairs... which upsets a lot of countries

• Countries would have the right in to opt in or out of deeper co-operation in the area of justice and policing

• The Charter of Fundamental Rights would be legally binding

Rover, Cruella and the MEPs

• Mark Mardell
• 19 Jun 07, 12:25 AM

It鈥檚 just possible your child goes to bed every night cuddling up to that favourite toy, Hoofy bear or tiny Ted, unaware that its soft fur could, just could, be made out of Rover鈥檚 third cousin.

What is the subject that members of the find makes their postbag bulge? Not the constitution. Not relations with Russia. Not energy policy. But the trade in cat and dog fur. It seems that Cruella Deville is alive and well and operating from China. Evidently there are farms full of cats and dogs and their fur is used on toys and gloves, to be sold in Europe. So , making it illegal in the EU, as it is in America and Australia.

But hang on. Why is it vile? Is this sense or sentiment? Obviously, making a coat out of giant panda or tiger is wrong. They are rare. Cats and dogs are not. Is farming them for their skin or fur worse than using any other animal? Of course, many people hate all animal fur clothes, but they are not illegal. Is it just because we see them as pets that we find it gross? It seems to me animals have the best chance of being protected if they are cute, or look a bit like us. Saving the slug is not on anyone鈥檚 agenda, although a slug-skin jacket probably wouldn鈥檛 sell very well either.

I鈥檝e every respect for people who object to using animals for food, clothing or sport. Their position is coherent. Incidentally, do people object to, say, horse-riding or using bullocks for ploughing? I am sure the European Parliament could be persuaded to mount a campaign against animal slavery. But anyway, it鈥檚 a coherent position.

But if we eat beef, what鈥檚 wrong with leather? And if we wear leather, what鈥檚 wrong with fur? And if we allow fur, what鈥檚 wrong with Rover and Tiddles providing it?

Don鈥檛 worry, I鈥檓 not sitting at my dining room table typing this, wearing robes of red setter. I am as guilty of sentiment as the next person. I literally threw up when I once ate horse meat by mistake, and shiver when I pass horse butchers in France and Italy. I would never eat lion or monkey. Which is fine. I don鈥檛 have to base my personal choices on logic. And neither do you. I once knew a vegetarian who would eat chicken. Many eat fish. She had every right to be mammalist, and they have every right to be warmbloodist. But should lawmakers restrict our choices based on illogical sentiment?

UPDATE: Thank you for your comments. I have replied to some of them here.

• Permalink
• Comments