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 We believe that it would not be long before important parts of our criminal law were potentially superseded by a body of European law.'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]:


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 162 (+2 tell)085.0%
DUP0 3033.3%
Independent1 1050.0%
Lab297 (+2 tell) 4086.1%
LDem46 0073.0%
PC3 00100.0%
SDLP1 0033.3%
SNP5 0083.3%
Total:353 170083.3%

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

Ian DavidsonGlasgow South WestLab (minister)aye
David DrewStroudLab (minister)aye
David MarshallGlasgow EastLab (minister)aye
Gisela StuartBirmingham, EdgbastonLab (minister)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive