Lisbon Treaty — Remove foreign policy role of the President of the European Council — rejected — 20 Feb 2008 at 19:45
Ian Davidson MP, Glasgow South West voted in the minority (Aye).
The majority No voters rejected an amendment[1] to the European Union (Amendment) Bill that would have removed the foreign policy role from the new President of the European Council, as proposed by the Treaty of Lisbon. The Aye-voters suggested that the Treaty of Lisbon tended to "enlarge the powers of the European Union at the expense of member states."[2]
However, Jim Murphy MP sought to allay fears that the President of the European Council would become too powerful:[3]
- 'He also argued that the president of the European Council would in some way be the equivalent of the President of the United States of America. That assertion does not stand up even to superficial examination. The US constitution vests executive powers in the President of the United States of America; the president of the European Council will have no such powers. The US President is the commander in chief of the US armed forces; there will be no such role for the president of the European Council. The US President can make treaties; there will be no such power for the president of the European Council. The US President can appoint Supreme Court judges and grant pardons; there will be no such power for the president of the European Council. The President of the US can veto Bills passed by Congress; there will be no legislative role for the president of the European Council.'
The amendment can be seen as an attempt to limit Britain's further integration with the European Union.
The European Union (Amendment) Bill implements the Lisbon Treaty into UK law. The main aims of the Lisbon Treaty were to[3]:
- 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, 20 February 2008
- [2] Mark Francois MP, House of Commons, 20 February 2008
- [3] Jim Murphy MP, House of Commons, 20 February 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 | 2 | 126 (+2 tell) | 0 | 67.4% |
DUP | 0 | 3 | 0 | 33.3% |
Independent | 1 | 0 | 0 | 20.0% |
Lab | 278 (+2 tell) | 4 | 0 | 80.7% |
LDem | 44 | 0 | 0 | 69.8% |
PC | 2 | 0 | 0 | 66.7% |
SDLP | 2 | 0 | 0 | 66.7% |
SNP | 2 | 0 | 0 | 33.3% |
Total: | 331 | 133 | 0 | 73.8% |
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
Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
Kenneth Clarke | Rushcliffe | Con (front bench) | no |
John Gummer | Suffolk Coastal | Con | no |
Ian Davidson | Glasgow South West | Lab (minister) | aye |
Frank Field | Birkenhead | Lab (minister) | aye |
Kate Hoey | Vauxhall | Lab (minister) | aye |
Kelvin Hopkins | Luton North | Lab (minister) | aye |