Comparison of Divisions: Lisbon Treaty — Referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union — rejected — 4 Mar 2008 at 16:27 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49
(Swap the two divisions around).
Vote (a) : Lisbon Treaty — Referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union — rejected - 4 Mar 2008 at 16:27 - Division No. 112
The majority of MPs voted to reject a motion[1] which would have allowed a provision holding a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union (EU) to be inserted into the European Union (Amendment) Bill.
The text of the rejected motion[1] was:
- That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the European Union (Amendment) Bill that it have power to make provision in the Bill for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union.
The Liberal Democrats put forward this motion because they argued that any referendum should be on the EU as a whole rather than on individual treaties. As Adrian Sanders MP explains:[2]
- 'How can one remain a member of a club when one has rejected its rules?'
However, the Tories and Labour thought this was a cynical tactic by the Lib Dems:
- 'He is not arguing about the great principle of staying in or leaving the European Union, because he does not want that referendum at all. This instruction is just a weasel tactic to get out of the promise that he made to the electorate at the last general election to hold a referendum on the European treaty. Nobody who shares my opinion will be fooled by this rather disgraceful tactic.'[3]
----
- [1] Edward Davey MP, House of Commons, 4 March 2008
- [2] Adrian Sanders MP, House of Commons, 4 March 2008
- [3] Philip Davies MP, House of Commons, 4 March 2008
Vote (b) : Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat - 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 - Division No. 104
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
Opposite in Votes - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote on Motion (a) was opposite to their vote on Motion (b). You can also see all differing votes between these two divisions, or simply all the votes.
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b)