 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Maastricht Rebels" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Part ofa series of articles on | ||||||||||
| UK membership of theEuropean Union (1973–2020) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||||
Treaty amendments
| ||||||||||
| ||
|---|---|---|
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom First ministry and term (November 1990 – April 1992)Second ministry and term (April 1992 – May 1997)
Bibliography 
 | ||
TheMaastricht Rebels were BritishMembers of Parliament (MPs) belonging to the then governingConservative Party who refused to support the government of Prime MinisterJohn Major in a series of votes in theHouse of Commons on the issue of the implementation of theMaastricht Treaty (Treaty on European Union) in British law.
The Maastricht Rebellion was a major event ofJohn Major's troubledsecond term as Prime Minister (1992–1997). Major's party had a small majority, thus giving the relatively small number of rebels disproportionate influence: for example, there were 22 rebels on the second reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in May 1992, and the government's majority at the time was only 18.
The rebellion had the support of former Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher and former Party ChairmanNorman Tebbit.
At the height of the rebellion, the1993 Christchurch by-election was held, where aConservative majority of 23,000 was turned into aLiberal Democrat majority of 16,000. Conservative showings in opinion polls were as low as 23%.John Major threatened the rebels with a general election (despite one only beingheld a year earlier).
TheLabour Party brought in MPs who had just had surgery and others who had suffered heart attacks - the stretcher vote - to vote in theHouse of Commons, in an effort to bring the government down. The loyalists and rebels in the Conservative Party also brought in their own stretcher vote; for example,Bill Cash organised for one MP (Bill Walker), who was seriously ill, to fly from Scotland secretly, then hid him at the rebels' headquarters inGreat College Street, before, with Labour connivance, hiding him in the family room of the Commons so that theConservative whips would not know; the government consequently lost a vote.
AtThird Reading, on 20 May 1993, theLabour whip was to abstain. Despite this, 66 Labour MPs chose to vote against the Bill, while five (Andrew Faulds,John Home Robertson,Calum MacDonald,Giles Radice andBrian Sedgemore) supported the Government. The Bill passed Third Reading 292–112.[4]
On 22 July 1993, on a Labour amendment to postpone incorporation of the Treaty until the Government adopted the 27th Amendment thereto (the Protocol on Social Policy or "Social Chapter"), the government tied 317–317 against the combined forces of some of the rebels, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and others. The tie was broken by SpeakerBetty Boothroyd's casting a 'no' vote (the Speaker casting her vote in accordance withSpeaker Denison's rule not to create a majority where none exists), though it later transpired that an extra 'aye' had been counted by mistake and both Boothroyd's and the erroneous vote were later expunged and the result deemed a 317-316 vote against.[5] The remaining rebels (who had abstained on the amendment) then joined their colleagues to defeat the main take-note motion 324–316.
On the following day, it emerged, on inspection of the Division List, that the Government Whip and teller of the Opposition votesIrvine Patnick had failed to notice an overcount of one vote for the Labour amendment. Had he done so, it would have meant a clear win without a reliance being placed on the Speaker. On the next day (Friday) the government tabled a reworded motion to its predecessor,seeking the confidence of the House in their policy on theSocial Chapter instead of merely "taking note" thereof. As a result, the Government easily won the substantive question by 339–299. Had the government lost this motion of confidence, a dissolution would have been requested and probably granted.
Bill Cash set-up theEuropean Foundation to fund legal challenges to the government. Opposition to Maastricht led to the foundation of theAnti-Federalist League which ultimately led to the creation of theUK Independence Party (UKIP). Certain rebels later went on to join that political party, such asChristopher Gill andRichard Body, withRoger Knapman serving as their leader from 2002 to 2006.
The Maastricht rebels continued to harass the government on European issues, coming close to bringing the Government down three times.[citation needed] They repeatedly called Major's bluff on an early dissolution of Parliament. On 23 November 1994,Nicholas Budgen asked him whether he had spoken tothe Queen about dissolving Parliament. On 25 November 1994,Christopher Gill stated he would sooner resign as a Conservative than vote for the Bill. All those Conservatives who rebelled over theEC Finance Bill on 28 November 1994 had the Conservative whip withdrawn.
Deselection was threatened, so those Conservative MPs would not be able to stand at the next election, although at that time it was mostly a decision for the party members in their Constituency Association. Budgen summed the attitude of the rebels up with this quote: "It would be my general feeling that the transference of power to Europe was so important a matter as to require a vote against any organisation and any party that wished to transfer that power."[6] In 1995, Major called anearly leadership election to attempt to reimpose his authority on the party, and won. However, the infighting continued, and the Conservatives were heavily defeated in thegeneral election of May 1997.
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Those who had the whip withdrawn following the EC Finance Bill:
Other MPs who had whip withdrawn for failure to support the government on a confidence issue related to Maastricht:
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
After the Conservatives' catastrophic defeat at the1997 election, blamed in part on the embarrassment caused by the open rebelliousness and infighting of elements in the party, changes were made to the party's procedures to reduce the freedom of backbench MPs to rebel. Local constituency associations are now permitted to select as candidates only members of the approved party list or MPs with the whip.
The party leadership could therefore require a rebellious MP (or an MP involved in a scandal) to be deselected as a candidate by removing his or her name from the Candidates' List or by removing the whip as was done toHoward Flight at the2005 general election. Local members who refuse to obey the instructions ofConservative Central Office can have their Association suspended (put on "Special Measures"), as was done to the Slough Association at that election when they refused to deselect their candidate.
.jpg)
