Margaret Thatcher dies of a stroke.

[PauloBarnesi]

as the BBC article says

 

 

Margaret Thatcher, who has died following a stroke, came to office as British prime minister with Ireland nowhere near the top of her list of priorities.

But she found that somehow Irish affairs demanded her attention, helped to define the age she dominated and were to play a role in determining how history remembers her.

Republicans saw her as an enemy from the very start.

In the months before she took office, an INLA car bomb killed her close political ally Airey Neave as he drove out of the underground car park at the Palace of Westminster.

Neave, a former intelligence officer who once escaped from the Nazi prison camp at Colditz, believed in taking much tougher security measures against republican paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

It was a view that fitted in with Mrs Thatcher's own and may well have helped to shape it.

Union belief

The great irony of her period in office is that she managed to alienate unionists too, even though she will probably turn out to be the last prime minister of the UK to have had old-fashioned unionist instincts.

She was always ready to point out that the official title of the party she led was "Conservative and Unionist" - just as she was herself.

This was a woman to whom Northern Ireland was every bit as British as her Finchley constituency.

As she was settling into office, a series of IRA murders claimed the Queen's cousin Lord Mountbatten and killed 18 British soldiers in a single day.Whatever narrative thread you follow through her years in office - radical economic change, her struggle with trade unionism, or the battle for the Falklands and the fallout from that - events in Ireland are always there in the background.

The Troubles were at their height, and in Margaret Thatcher the IRA found an implacable foe.

She was convinced that any settlement would have to include a decisive and lasting victory for the security forces over the IRA.

Uncompromising

It was the hunger strike in 1981 which defined her attitude towards republican violence.

Inside the Maze Prison complex near Lisburn in County Antrim, republican paramilitary prisoners were engaged in a long campaign to secure a set of privileges which would, in effect, have given them prisoner-of-war status.

It was a dispute that went to the heart of The Troubles - were imprisoned members of the IRA terrorist murderers, or guerrilla fighters whose actions in pursuit of their cause were legitimate?

Margaret Thatcher was in no doubt.

To her supporters, it was exactly the kind of uncompromising stand on a matter of principle that made her great."Crime is crime is crime. It is not political," she said, as the republican prisoners, one by one, starved themselves to death.

To many in Ireland, it was a display of brutal inflexibility that the deaths of 10 of the hunger strikers over a period of months did nothing to soften.

She became a figure of hate to Irish republicans - and in 1984 they tried, with devastating consequences, to assassinate her.

Security backing

An IRA bomb exploded at the Conservative Party conference in Brighton, killing four delegates and seriously injuring many others.

But Mrs Thatcher survived - and so did her unwavering determination to give the security forces the political support and the equipment they needed to crush republican terrorism.

To persuade the Irish government in Dublin to improve security co-operation and extradition arrangements, she signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985.

It was a curious step, which she took against her own political instincts, as it enshrined the right of the Irish Republic to a role in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Mrs Thatcher, already a figure of hate to one side in Northern Ireland, had now alienated the other.Unionists in the province, who should have been natural allies of Margaret Thatcher, were furious and began a campaign of street protests to attempt to overthrow the agreement.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement was a substantial political achievement in many ways and helped to pave the way for the improved relationships that eventually gave birth to the peace process.

But it was not an achievement of which Margaret Thatcher was proud - in her memoirs she wrote of how she had been misled about the likely extent of unionist anger it would provoke.

Defining moment

The events of 1987 summed up the atmosphere of the Thatcher years in Northern Ireland.

In May, British SAS commandos shot dead eight IRA members at Loughgall in County Armagh as they set out to ambush two officers in a sleepy part-time rural police station.

Six months later, 11 civilians were killed when a no-warning IRA bomb exploded as they gathered for a Remembrance Day service at Enniskillen in County Fermanagh.

Mrs Thatcher's belief in the use of tough tactics never wavered - in 1988 she introduced a broadcasting ban which made it illegal to broadcast the views of the likes of Sinn Fein, "to deny terrorists the oxygen of publicity on which they thrive".

Mrs Thatcher, it was clear, was not enthusiastic about the messy political compromises that the peace process required.That, remember, is just 10 years before one of her successors signed the Good Friday Agreement - a document which made it British policy to create political institutions where Sinn Fein would share power with Northern Ireland's other main political parties.

'Bulwark against terrorism'

She once said that she did not see why one should make concessions in order to persuade people to honour commitments they had already given - a phrase that might almost describe the approach to peace-making of the administrations that followed her.

But we cannot judge politicians by the standards of other ages; only by the standards of the ages in which they lived and governed.

In Irish affairs Margaret Thatcher was a tough and uncompromising believer in the Union, and instinctively loyal to the security forces she saw as society's bulwark against a slide into the anarchy of terrorism.

She was hated by republicans and despised them in return, and her blunt-speaking style won her few friends on either side of the border, even if many had a sneaking admiration for her status on the world stage.

If it never seemed likely that British policy would be overturned by violence on her watch, it never seemed likely either that the path to a more peaceful overall solution would be found.

 

 

 

[PauloBarnesi]

Thats nor what I was saying. I was saying if any British PM had been assassinated by the IRA, it would be unlikely that we would eventually get to where we are now at the speed we did.

 

So it was ok then for Maggie to drag her heels then for a number of years and refuse to engage in dialogue when everyone else - her own party, the Labour party, moderate nationalists in NI, the Irish government - were all saying its time to sit down and thrash a ceasefire out?

 

Doesn't exactly portray her in a good light now does it? for a job like PM you should be leaving personal grudges and animosity at the door.  

 

 

Thats true with the wonder of hindsight and looking at it analytically. But you and I know it was nothing like that for both sides, Thatcher’s views were hardened by several things, which I don’t need to list, and as I ve said killing Thatcher would have caused a pouring of blood in Great Britain on a much greater scale as scores were settled. 

 

The idea originally mooted that Thatcher’s death at the hands of terrorists would have improved the situation in Ireland and the UK was and is beyond the realm of common sense

 

She was ludcriously silly to try and gag Adams and McGuiness. And as is widely acknowledged the Unionists weren’t too hot on her either.

[tonyh29]

And while I have you here, a few hours ago you had no idea that Thatcher was involved with the Khmer Rouge, now you're trying to play down her association with it. Are you just making this up as you go along?

Meh nor did you

 

The Khmer Rouge as most know it ended in Jan 79  I can't help it that my historical knowledge is just too good for my own good

[peterms]

her crime wasn't as falsely stated in the original post that she was complicit in the Killing Fields , more that she later funded somebody that had 

 

of course you'll argue that is a heinous crime , but she wasn't the sole western leader caught up in this end game   ... as I said previously you only have to look at Stalin .. the Americans desire to let Stalin have Eastern Europe killed tens of millions , I don't hear anyone repeatedly hammering Roosevelt

The original post said she armed them after the killing fields. The point being that she supported them in full knowledge of what they had done.

The Roosevelt-Stalin comparison doesn't work. What could Roosevelt have done to prevent Stalin taking control of Eastern Europe, apart from launching a war? This would have been politically impossible, and probably militarily near-impossible. Whereas the choice for the western governments with regard to the Khmer Rouge in that situation was to support them, or not support them.

[tonyh29]

her crime wasn't as falsely stated in the original post that she was complicit in the Killing Fields , more that she later funded somebody that had 

 

of course you'll argue that is a heinous crime , but she wasn't the sole western leader caught up in this end game   ... as I said previously you only have to look at Stalin .. the Americans desire to let Stalin have Eastern Europe killed tens of millions , I don't hear anyone repeatedly hammering Roosevelt

The original post said she armed them after the killing fields. The point being that she supported them in full knowledge of what they had done.

The Roosevelt-Stalin comparison doesn't work. What could Roosevelt have done to prevent Stalin taking control of Eastern Europe, apart from launching a war? This would have been politically impossible, and probably militarily near-impossible. Whereas the choice for the western governments with regard to the Khmer Rouge in that situation was to support them, or not support them.

yeah my bad  .... I've edited my post as requested

 

there is a lot Roosevelt could have done , but that's sorta OT and for another day

[PauloBarnesi]

Would have been hard for Roosevelt. He was dead before the second world war ended, and they had reached the Rhine a month before he died.

[Corcaigh]

 

Thats nor what I was saying. I was saying if any British PM had been assassinated by the IRA, it would be unlikely that we would eventually get to where we are now at the speed we did.

 

So it was ok then for Maggie to drag her heels then for a number of years and refuse to engage in dialogue when everyone else - her own party, the Labour party, moderate nationalists in NI, the Irish government - were all saying its time to sit down and thrash a ceasefire out?

 

Doesn't exactly portray her in a good light now does it? for a job like PM you should be leaving personal grudges and animosity at the door.  

 

 

Thats true with the wonder of hindsight and looking at it analytically. But you and I know it was nothing like that for both sides, Thatcher’s views were hardened by several things, which I don’t need to list, and as I ve said killing Thatcher would have caused a pouring of blood in Great Britain on a much greater scale as scores were settled. 

 

The idea originally mooted that Thatcher’s death at the hands of terrorists would have improved the situation in Ireland and the UK was and is beyond the realm of common sense

 

She was ludcriously silly to try and gag Adams and McGuiness. And as is widely acknowledged the Unionists weren’t too hot on her either.

 

 

Indeed I can't argue with any of that. Going into the alternative historys for a moment, I wonder what would have happened if the PIRA had killed Thatcher? I would wager the reprisals from the state and citizenry of Britain would've been pretty gruesome for the Irish in Britain and Nationalists in Northern Ireland.

[peterms]

Would have been hard for Roosevelt. He was dead before the second world war ended, and they had reached the Rhine a month before he died.

Pah! They could have simply strapped him to his horse. No-one would have known a thing until decomposition set in.

[DeepDish]

I take great pleasure in knowing that she changed the society and it will never be like before.

 

She gets the last laugh (and I laugh with her) at the expense of her enemies.

Edited April 9, 2013 by DeepDish

[Mantis]

 

 

Thats nor what I was saying. I was saying if any British PM had been assassinated by the IRA, it would be unlikely that we would eventually get to where we are now at the speed we did.

 

So it was ok then for Maggie to drag her heels then for a number of years and refuse to engage in dialogue when everyone else - her own party, the Labour party, moderate nationalists in NI, the Irish government - were all saying its time to sit down and thrash a ceasefire out?

 

Doesn't exactly portray her in a good light now does it? for a job like PM you should be leaving personal grudges and animosity at the door.  

 

 

Thats true with the wonder of hindsight and looking at it analytically. But you and I know it was nothing like that for both sides, Thatcher’s views were hardened by several things, which I don’t need to list, and as I ve said killing Thatcher would have caused a pouring of blood in Great Britain on a much greater scale as scores were settled. 

 

The idea originally mooted that Thatcher’s death at the hands of terrorists would have improved the situation in Ireland and the UK was and is beyond the realm of common sense

 

She was ludcriously silly to try and gag Adams and McGuiness. And as is widely acknowledged the Unionists weren’t too hot on her either.

 

 

Indeed I can't argue with any of that. Going into the alternative historys for a moment, I wonder what would have happened if the PIRA had killed Thatcher? I would wager the reprisals from the state and citizenry of Britain would've been pretty gruesome for the Irish in Britain and Nationalists in Northern Ireland.

That would seem like a plausible and obviously unfavourable scenario. It's just a shame that for some personal political ideology seemingly comes before peace.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Mantis

[PauloBarnesi]

 

 

Thats nor what I was saying. I was saying if any British PM had been assassinated by the IRA, it would be unlikely that we would eventually get to where we are now at the speed we did.

 

So it was ok then for Maggie to drag her heels then for a number of years and refuse to engage in dialogue when everyone else - her own party, the Labour party, moderate nationalists in NI, the Irish government - were all saying its time to sit down and thrash a ceasefire out?

 

Doesn't exactly portray her in a good light now does it? for a job like PM you should be leaving personal grudges and animosity at the door.  

 

 

Thats true with the wonder of hindsight and looking at it analytically. But you and I know it was nothing like that for both sides, Thatcher’s views were hardened by several things, which I don’t need to list, and as I ve said killing Thatcher would have caused a pouring of blood in Great Britain on a much greater scale as scores were settled. 

 

The idea originally mooted that Thatcher’s death at the hands of terrorists would have improved the situation in Ireland and the UK was and is beyond the realm of common sense

 

She was ludcriously silly to try and gag Adams and McGuiness. And as is widely acknowledged the Unionists weren’t too hot on her either.

 

 

Indeed I can't argue with any of that. Going into the alternative historys for a moment, I wonder what would have happened if the PIRA had killed Thatcher? I would wager the reprisals from the state and citizenry of Britain would've been pretty gruesome for the Irish in Britain and Nationalists in Northern Ireland.

 

It would have been a bloodbath as the troubles would have been something that would have seen hundreds and hundreds more killed in Britain and Ireland. Its almost possible to see the whole of the British Isles awash with blood, as each side took it to extremes. Reading back over some of the terrible events of the troubles, most of the blood spilt would be innocent, merely spilt for the religious creed or political affiliation they followed.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I take great pleasure in knowing that she changed the society and it will never be like before.

 

She gets the last laugh (and I laught with her) at the expense of the poor.

 Fixed

[drat01]

Being in London today and you can see real evidence of how she created a massive divide in the country and the injustices of her beliefs that are still running (ruining) through this country. She was divisive and actually quite evil in the way that she acted out and got others to act out her beliefs.

 

Also in the Standard today there is a little bit regarding the costs of the jamboree - ooops sorry the funeral. Now it seems that the Queen is going which apparently has increased the very large costs even more. Boris is coming back from holidays - and wont say who is paying for his flights. Tory MP's are outraged apparently that some opposition MP's are not up for the idea of getting together in the HoP to pay some sick tribute to her - again more costs as apparently the tax payer will foot the bill of getting MP's back from holidays etc.

 

She does not deserve a special funeral, nor does any political figure. The only exception to that was Churchill and there was a special case for him. For her there is no need, and ironically the costs that UK plc will pay for it and the inconvenience for the day in London is quite a significant figure. Just let her family and friends (maybe Rupert M?) pay for a quiet funeral and let others try and survive under her policies that are hitting the country now.

[tonyh29]

Would have been hard for Roosevelt. He was dead before the second world war ended, and they had reached the Rhine a month before he died.

Pah! They could have simply strapped him to his horse. No-one would have known a thing until decomposition set in.

Now I know you are not stupid so have to assume its a bit of feigned ignorance in an attempt to laugh at my expense

You know as well as everyone else the actions put into place by Roosevelt , if you didn't then just ask any Hungarian or Pole that lived through the aftermath

Edited April 9, 2013 by tonyh29

[leviramsey]

She destroyed a Britain that needed destroying.

the irony may be that she destroyed the parts of Britain she apparently loved, as well.

[tonyh29]

Being in London today and you can see real evidence of how she created a massive divide in the country and the injustices of her beliefs that are still running (ruining) through this country. She was divisive and actually quite evil in the way that she acted out and got others to act out her beliefs.

Also in the Standard today there is a little bit regarding the costs of the jamboree - ooops sorry the funeral. Now it seems that the Queen is going which apparently has increased the very large costs even more. Boris is coming back from holidays - and wont say who is paying for his flights. Tory MP's are outraged apparently that some opposition MP's are not up for the idea of getting together in the HoP to pay some sick tribute to her - again more costs as apparently the tax payer will foot the bill of getting MP's back from holidays etc.

She does not deserve a special funeral, nor does any political figure. The only exception to that was Churchill and there was a special case for him. For her there is no need, and ironically the costs that UK plc will pay for it and the inconvenience for the day in London is quite a significant figure. Just let her family and friends (maybe Rupert M?) pay for a quiet funeral and let others try and survive under her policies that are hitting the country now.

Radio 5 just said Thatcher's estate are paying an undisclosed amount of the funneral costs

The suggestion was security was coming out the public purse

But nobody seems to be putting figures on anything

Edited April 9, 2013 by tonyh29

[drat01]

The costs to the public will still be significant. Considering the current trend for cost savings etc why the hell are the public paying for what is obviously a very rich woman with very rich friends to be chucked on the fire? The disruption on that day in London will be significant and we know ho wthe Gvmt like to quantify that - I remember the "outrage" when people were protesting about Fees and extra taxes etc.

 

She should have had a private funeral paid for by her family like most people have to do. If some of Joe Public are so idiotic as to want to be there then so be it, but let them do so without disruption to those trying to work

[Dr_Pangloss]

'Sir' Mark has a reported wealth of something like 60 million (as a product of his arms dealing and loansharking), he should front the bill.

[blandy]

tonyh29, on 09 Apr 2013 - 19:10, said:

peterms, on 09 Apr 2013 - 18:04, said:

PauloBarnesi, on 09 Apr 2013 - 17:56, said:

Would have been hard for Roosevelt. He was dead before the second world war ended, and they had reached the Rhine a month before he died.

Pah! They could have simply strapped him to his horse. No-one would have known a thing until decomposition set in.

Now I know you are not stupid so have to assume its a bit of feigned ignorance in an attempt to laugh at my expense

It looked like laughing at his own expense, and a bit of slapstick, to me, Tony. Not the first time in this thread that a joke has been misunderstood, mind. Too serious, this thread. Maybe it's all the happiness, suddenly abroad for some reason?

[PauloBarnesi]

She should have a private funeral. Ultimately for all the pomp and ceremony, Churchill was buried iirc in a quiet ceremony in Oxfordshire. He asked to be taken by train, and if De Gaulle was still alive to be taken from Waterloo, rather than Paddington.

Edited April 9, 2013 by PauloBarnesi