Comparison of Divisions: Lisbon Treaty — Disapproves of the government's policy towards the Lisbon Treaty with regards to the European Union's institutions — rejected — 26 Feb 2008 at 19:35 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

The majority No voters rejected an amendment^[1] that would have shown the House's disapproval of "the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of the provisions on the effectiveness of European Union institutions and decision-making."

The amendment argued that the Lisbon Treaty expanded "the power of EU institutions at Member States' expense by replacing the rotating presidency of the European Council with a permanent President, giving the EU a single legal personality, abolishing national vetoes in more than fifty areas and entrenching marine biological resources as an exclusive EU competence."

However, Jim Murphy MP argued that the Treaty "will allow the existing EU institutions to function more effectively and with more accountability to the member states,"^[2] and "provides new powers for national Parliaments; more effective decision making where it is in the UK's interests; and explicitly sets out the EU's competences—and where those competences end—for the first time."^[3]

The main aims of the Lisbon Treaty were to^[4]:

• Streamline EU institutions
• Establish a permanent President of the European Council (as of 16 March 2010 held by Herman Van Rompuy)
• Establish the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (as of 16 March 2010 held by Catherine Ashton)
• Give new powers to the EU over justice and home affairs
• Remove the national veto in some areas such as energy security and emergency aid

----

• [1] William Hague MP, House of Commons, 26 February 2008
• [2] Jim Murphy MP, House of Commons, 26 February 2008
• [3] Jim Murphy MP, House of Commons, 26 February 2008
• [4] BBC News Q&A: The Lisbon Treaty, 5 February 2010

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the motion:^[1]

• This House
• regrets the Government's recent statement^[2] outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom;
• recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years;
• notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here;
• believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since;
• is concerned that the Government's new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority;
• further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and
• calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.

As a consequence, the alternative Government motion, which read:^[3]

• This House
• recognises that this Government is the only one since the Second World War to allow Gurkhas and their families settlement rights to the United Kingdom;
• notes that in 2004 the Government permitted settlement rights to Gurkhas discharged since 1997, following the transfer of the Brigade HQ from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom;
• further notes that under these rules around 6,000 Gurkhas and family members have been welcomed to the UK;
• acknowledges that the court judgement of September 2008 determined that the 1997 cut-off date was fair and rational, while seeking clarification of the criteria for settlement rights for those who retired before 1997;
• further notes that on 24 April the Government published new and more generous guidelines for the settlement applications of Gurkhas who retired before 1997;
• supports this revised guidance, which will make around 10,000 Gurkhas and family members eligible to settle in the UK;
• further notes that the Government undertakes actively to inform those who may be eligible in Nepal of these changes and to review the impact of the new guidance within 12 months;
• further notes that the contribution Gurkhas have made is already recognised by pensions paid to around 25,000 Gurkhas or their widows in Nepal that allow for a good standard of living there; and
• further notes that in the year 2000 Gurkha pensions were doubled and that, earlier in April 2009, in addition to an inflationary uplift of 14 per cent., those over 80 years old received a 20 per cent. increase in their pension.

... was never voted upon.

Although this extremely rare Government defeat in an opposition day motion is not binding (has no legal force)^[4] a Government minister made a statement later in the day to bring "forward the date for the determination of the outstanding applications to the end of May."^[5]

• [1] Christopher Huhne MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
• [2] Phil Woollas MP, Written Ministerial Statement, 29 April 2009
• [3] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
• [4] Home Secretary Jacqui Smith blamed for humiliating Gurkhas defeat in the Commons, Daily Mail, 30 April 2009
• [5] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009