Lisbon Treaty — Exclude the European Court of Justice's regulations on police and justice matters — rejected — 29 Jan 2008 at 22:15
The majority No voters rejected an amendment[1] to the European Union (Amendment) Bill which aimed to limit the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from increasing its powers over police and justice matters. This Bill implements the Lisbon Treaty into UK law.
In the Maastricht Treaty it was set out that the ECJ could not decide on affairs relating to criminal justice. However, in the Lisbon Treaty this changed so that the ECJ could regulate on these matters but member states would have to "opt into" these arrangements.
Mark Francois MP explains his reason for tabling the amendment[2]:
- 'Over time we would see current and future EU measures subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice in this area [criminal justice]. We believe that it would not be long before important parts of our criminal law were potentially superseded by a body of European law.'
Jim Murphy MP argues against the amendment as follows[3]:
- 'Justice and home affairs in general and police and judicial co-operation on criminal matters in particular are subjects of great sensitivity. The UK has therefore negotiated a comprehensive opt-out arrangement, under which we have a choice, as the UK Government. First, we can choose whether to opt into new justice and home affairs proposals. Secondly, we can choose whether to accept European Court of Justice jurisdiction over existing third pillar measures at the end of the transitional period.'
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] Mark Francois MP, House of Commons, 29 January 2008
- [2] Mark Francois MP, House of Commons, 29 January 2008
- [3] Jim Murphy MP, House of Commons, 29 January 2008
- [4] BBC News Q&A: The Lisbon Treaty, 5 February 2010
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
Con | 0 | 162 (+2 tell) | 0 | 85.0% |
DUP | 0 | 3 | 0 | 33.3% |
Independent | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50.0% |
Lab | 297 (+2 tell) | 4 | 0 | 86.1% |
LDem | 46 | 0 | 0 | 73.0% |
PC | 3 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
SDLP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 33.3% |
SNP | 5 | 0 | 0 | 83.3% |
Total: | 353 | 170 | 0 | 83.3% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote
Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
Ian Davidson | Glasgow South West | Lab (minister) | aye |
David Drew | Stroud | Lab (minister) | aye |
David Marshall | Glasgow East | Lab (minister) | aye |
Gisela Stuart | Birmingham, Edgbaston | Lab (minister) | aye |