Talk:Maastricht Rebels

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original talk[edit]

We could do with a list of all of them. It's clear that some MPs are claimed to be rebels and don't appear on our current list. It could be interesting if some claimed rebels aren't at all - but we need to make sure we have an authoritative list before we challenge the "Maastricht Rebel" tag on individual MP's pages. Secret london 13:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can have a look at Major's autobiography. Morwen - Talk 13:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but I think we need to go back to Hansard and see who voted no on the key votes. (although Major's autobiography would be good as well)Secret london 13:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. From Major, I find

there were at 46 rebels on one vote, the worst at the time
Bill Walker should be added to the list
one of the people attending the rebel's meeting anonymously passed notes to the govt
on July 23 was the big crunch day - two votes:
the rebels allied with Labour to try to add the Social Chapter to the Treaty, the govt won this vote by 318 to 317.
the govt then lost the vote to actually ratify the treaty by 8 votes
he then called a Motion of Confidence, and pencilled in "early september" for a general election, if needed 1993.
the next day, they win the motion of confidence (that had the effect of ratifying the treaty), by 38 votes

Morwen - Talk 18:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Body[edit]

I'm pretty sure that Richard Body didn't actually have the whip withdrawn in November 1994. I seem to recall that he supported the government in the vote but then resigned the whip because he could not support the policy. Perhaps there is something in Hansard on this? Damoo 06:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing at Seldon's biography of Major, Body resigned the whip in protest at the treatment of the 8 who had the whip withdrawn. Although he was considered part of the "whipless 9" by the media, he was not part of the later negotiations to restore the whip. He stayed off it for another year. Timrollpickering 21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

John Major Kendall.tif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

This article ought to be titled 'Maastricht Rebellion' and give a full account of the dispute that took place within the Conservative Party at the time. If not, then certainly the word 'Rebels' ought to be uncapitalized - I have never seen it written as given here. Harfarhs (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]