European Union Bill — Report (1st Day) — Clause 2 — Treaties amending or replacing TEU or TFEU — 8 Jun 2011 at 19:35

The majority of members of the House of Lords voted against giving a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament the power to decide if a referendum was required following Parliamentary agreement to transfer more powers to the European Union. The Bill as it stood, and as it remained following this vote, allowed an exemption from a referendum only if a Bill amending an EU treaty states the conditions for a referendum set out in Section 4 of the European Union Bill were not met.

Those members of the House of Lords voting "Content" were opening the possibility of not having a referendum following the passing of an Act approving the transfer of powers from the UK to the EU.

The majority of Not-Contents voted against the following amendment which would have taken effect on Clause 2 of the European Union Bill:

  • Amendment 5A: Clause 2, page 2, line 24, after "that" insert-
  • after "that" insert- "
  • (a) a referendum does not need to be held in accordance with section (Process for determining the necessity of referendums); or
  • (b)

This vote then leaves this text in Clause 2 as stands:

‘The exemption condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the treaty states that the treaty does not fall within section 4.’

The "Process for determining the necessity of referendums" mentioned in the amendment was described in a subsequent amendment, 5B*[2], subclause 1 of which stated:

  • (1) There is to be a joint committee composed of members of both Houses of Parliament established for the purpose of examining whether a referendum is necessary under this Act.

Clause 2[1] sets out what will happen should any changes or replacement be made to the TEU[3] and TFEU[4]. A statement explaining this treaty would need to be given to Parliament, an Act of Parliament and a referendum would also be required, unless a condition is met that means a referendum is not necessary.

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 is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Not-Content)Minority (Content)Turnout
Con134 (+2 tell) 161.7%
Crossbench10 2116.3%
DUP0 125.0%
Independent Labour1 0100.0%
Lab0 126 (+2 tell)51.4%
LDem56 057.7%
UKIP2 0100.0%
UUP1 150.0%
Total:204 15046.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by vote

Lords 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 lord who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

Lord Tugendhat Con (front bench)aye
Lord Aberdare Crossbenchno
Viscount Craigavon Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Greenway Crossbenchno
Lord Kakkar Crossbenchno
Lord Kilclooney Crossbenchno
Lord Krebs Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Laming Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Patel Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord St John of BletsoCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Sutherland of HoundwoodCrossbench (front bench)no

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