Lisbon Treaty — Disapproves of the government's policy towards the Lisbon Treaty with regards to foreign affairs — rejected — 20 Feb 2008 at 16:15

The majority No voters rejected an amendment[1] that disapproved of the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning foreign, security and defence policy. In particular, the Aye voters argued that it would not always be the case that all European member states would share the same foreign policy and that therefore the Government's policy towards the Lisbon Treaty was against the "national interest".

In the debate David Miliband MP argued that:[2]

  • 'The treaty does not, repeat not, change the fundamental nature of common foreign and security policy co-operation. That continues to be covered in a separate treaty, subject—as is stated in the treaty for the first time—to "specific rules and procedures". The treaty includes an article—again, it appears for the first time—underlining those distinct arrangements: unanimity as the general rule so a veto for all countries, no legislative acts, and a limited role for Community institutions.'

However, William Hague MP thought that the Lisbon Treaty gave more power to the European Union over foreign policy:[3]

  • 'the existence of the high representative, the renamed Foreign Minister, and the simultaneous membership of the European Commission for the person holding that post; the appointment of the high representative by qualified majority voting; the extension of QMV to proposals made by the high representative and the design of the EU diplomatic service; the creation of the new EU foreign policy fund; the requirement on Britain and France to invite the high representative to present the EU's case at the UN Security Council when a common position has been determined; the creation of a single legal personality for the EU; and a series of defence commitments, including a mutual defence commitment and so-called permanent structured co-operation.'

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


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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
Con2 147 (+2 tell)078.2%
DUP0 6066.7%
Independent1 0020.0%
Lab283 (+2 tell) 3081.8%
LDem51 0081.0%
PC3 00100.0%
SDLP2 0066.7%
SNP4 0066.7%
Total:346 156079.8%

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

Kenneth ClarkeRushcliffeConno
John GummerSuffolk CoastalConno
Ian DavidsonGlasgow South WestLabaye
David MarshallGlasgow EastLabaye
Austin MitchellGreat GrimsbyLabaye

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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive