Interesting analysis—thank you for this. Having followed this ordeal very closely and for many years, i do not fully agree.
Legally; and most importantly, the provision remains symbolic as it is not binding (it may seem bonkers but some provisions in our BE Constitution are not binding and thus not enforceable). The non-binding nature of the new provision was confirmed by several legal experts advising Parliament. But right-wing party NVA wanted absolute certainty on the non-binding character. So they went all creative and submitted a last-minute amendment to the provision which would make it binding BUT requesting all political parties to vote against this amendment. This amendment was voted against in parliament (as planned) just to make clear the original provision is purely symbolic.
Politically; i agree VB’s abstention showcases their (semi) pro-animal view, but NVA’s abstention does not. After their amendment was rejected in parliament (see point 1), NVA was enough confident enough the provision would be purely symbolic. They could save face by abstaining instead of voting against. They really feared backlash from GAIA and the likes (and rightfully so, considering GAIA’s campaign against CDV for voting against, in the run up to previous elections).
Beyond this specific issue, I partly concurr with your analysis that Flemish far-right (VB) is generally more pro animal welfare than Flemish right (NVA). Again proven to be true with the recent vote on access to justice for aw ngos. But only partly, because VB does not seem to care any more about farm animals than NVA in recent years.
EA; i am not sure wheter this symbolic trophee was really worth the many ressources used by NGOs (mainly GAIA). It was no doubt good for their community building and funding to have this trophee and say ‘we get shit done’. In my opinion; welfare impact seems insignificant in the long term. In the short term, impact seems negative as lobbying/campaigning for aw became more difficult imho (having to rebut the argument that ‘animals are already in the constitution so we do not need any better legislation or changes’).
Interesting analysis—thank you for this. Having followed this ordeal very closely and for many years, i do not fully agree.
Legally; and most importantly, the provision remains symbolic as it is not binding (it may seem bonkers but some provisions in our BE Constitution are not binding and thus not enforceable). The non-binding nature of the new provision was confirmed by several legal experts advising Parliament. But right-wing party NVA wanted absolute certainty on the non-binding character. So they went all creative and submitted a last-minute amendment to the provision which would make it binding BUT requesting all political parties to vote against this amendment. This amendment was voted against in parliament (as planned) just to make clear the original provision is purely symbolic.
Politically; i agree VB’s abstention showcases their (semi) pro-animal view, but NVA’s abstention does not. After their amendment was rejected in parliament (see point 1), NVA was enough confident enough the provision would be purely symbolic. They could save face by abstaining instead of voting against. They really feared backlash from GAIA and the likes (and rightfully so, considering GAIA’s campaign against CDV for voting against, in the run up to previous elections).
Beyond this specific issue, I partly concurr with your analysis that Flemish far-right (VB) is generally more pro animal welfare than Flemish right (NVA). Again proven to be true with the recent vote on access to justice for aw ngos. But only partly, because VB does not seem to care any more about farm animals than NVA in recent years.
EA; i am not sure wheter this symbolic trophee was really worth the many ressources used by NGOs (mainly GAIA). It was no doubt good for their community building and funding to have this trophee and say ‘we get shit done’. In my opinion; welfare impact seems insignificant in the long term. In the short term, impact seems negative as lobbying/campaigning for aw became more difficult imho (having to rebut the argument that ‘animals are already in the constitution so we do not need any better legislation or changes’).