Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Happyman42 · 15-04-2013 11:06PM

true wrote: »

+1. Her government supported Ireland financially through all the money it gave us via / through the EEC. Hundreds of thousands of Irish people got good jobs in Britain and were treated well there, inc some of my relations and friends. She supported the democratic wishes of the majority in N. Ireland.
Despite what some irish people did to her friends and colleagues ( eg Airey Neave ), nobody has any proof she hated Ireland. While some Gardai and Irish soldiers paid the ultimate price fighting the PIRA, her forces were the cutting edge ;we should be grateful for her courage, hard work and determination. In 100 years she will be looked on as one of the wisest / best politicians Europe ever had. People admire her courage, guts and determination.
n.b. she was proved right about the euro, just as she was proved right about Gadaffi, the Argentinian dictatorship, the cold war, the PIRA and socialism.

She was right about the euro for the wrong reasons.:rolleyes: She was at heart a trenchant Euro sceptic, happy to go along with what was there when she took office but nothing was going to be agreed re Europe on her watch.
As Howe said about her when he finally had enough and launched the resignation tirade that saw HER OWN PARTY kick her unceremoniously out of No. 10

'You see a continent that is positively teeming with ill-intentioned people, 'scheming', to extinguish democracy, to dissolve our national identities, and to lead us through the back door into a federal Europe.’

Which was just more of her innate jingoistic, stubborn little Englander guff. Couple that with what the Australian Foreign minister said about her racist advice to him about controlling Asians and it isn't hard to imagine her as generally racist.

true · 15-04-2013 11:12PM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

....this Falklands story is as believable as the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..

Unbelieveable? Do not forget Chile was officially neutral during the Falklands War, but Chile's Westinghouse long range radar that was deployed in the south of the country gave the British task force early warning of Argentinian air attacks. This allowed British ships and troops in the war zone to take defensive ation. Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister at the time of the war, has said that the day the radar was taken out of service for overdue maintenance was the day Argentinian fighter-bombers bombed the troopships Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram, leaving 53 dead and many injured. According to Chilean Junta and former Air Force commander Fernando Matthei, Chilean support included military intelligence gathering, radar surveillance, allowing British aircraft to operate with Chilean colours, and facilitating the safe return of British special forces, among other forms of assistance.[49] In April and May 1982, a squadron of mothballed British Hawker Hunter fighter-bombers departed for Chile, arriving on 22 May and allowing the Chilean Air Force to reform the No. 9 "Las Panteras Negras" Squadron. A further consignment of three frontier surveillance and shipping reconnaissance Canberras left for Chile in October. Some authors have speculated that Argentina might have won the war had the military felt able to employ the elite VIth and VIIIth Mountain Brigades, which remained sitting in the Andes guarding against possible Chilean incursions.

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

European leaders baulked when she gave him political aslum when he was wanted for war crimes in Chile. .

She did not give him political aslum as she was long since retired then.

true · 15-04-2013 11:16PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

She was right about the euro for the wrong reasons.

Even if you the great economist, think that she ( with her economist advisors and the Bank of England ) did not understand economics, she was still right about the euro for economic reasons.

Happyman42 · 15-04-2013 11:33PM

true wrote: »

Even if you the great economist, think that she ( with her economist advisors and the Bank of England ) did not understand economics, she was still right about the euro for economic reasons.

The Euro is strong, even still.The problem wasn't caused by the Euro, it was caused by free market greed coming home to roost and collapsing financial markets. Guess who was the prime proponent of a free market?
Please stop making points you are picking up in the Daily Mail and the Sun.

Fratton Fred · 15-04-2013 11:37PM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

I disagree with you, does it not state in the article her admiration of Cromwell.
I remember this time well and a lot of her senior party colleague's were shocked by some of her suggestion's. Don't be so quick to put something down because you disagree with what is being said. She was a very divisive figure who was no friend to this country. She does not command very much respect here.

In what way was she antI Irish? Ive asked many times and no one can say why?

I can only put this down to another republican pr success.

I have to hand it to Gerry, he is the master of spin.

Happyman42 · 15-04-2013 11:44PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have to hand it to Gerry, he is the master of spin.

'In what way' did Gerry say she was anti Irish? Jesus Fred, you really need to lay down on a leather bench someplace and get some help.

Fratton Fred · 15-04-2013 11:45PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Euro is strong, even still.The problem wasn't caused by the Euro, it was caused by free market greed coming home to roost and collapsing financial markets. Guess who was the prime proponent of a free market?
Please stop making points you are picking up in the Daily Mail and the Sun.

And the small matter of vastly differing economies being joined in a monetary union for political reasons rather than economic ones.

Fratton Fred · 15-04-2013 11:50PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

'In what way' did Gerry say she was anti Irish? Jesus Fred, you really need to lay down on a leather bench someplace and get some help.

Oh dear, did someone criticise st Gerry?

He milked the hungerstrikes for all they were worth and used them to gain political leverage (to the point where he was prepare. To let six men die). That's where the whole Maggie was anti Irish rhetoric comes from.

He pretty much repeated it in his little rant when she died.

Happyman42 · 15-04-2013 11:55PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And the small matter of vastly differing economies being joined in a monetary union for political reasons rather than economic ones.

Britain is ushering in austerity that hasn't been seen since Maggie herself to attempt to get themselves out of the ****storm caused by the meltdown of financial markets which began in America. The Euro isn't perfect, but it didn't cause the crisis and the crisis has affected everywhere.
God help the British if Maggie was still in power today, she believed in a top down economy, guess who and where would be getting laid waste again to bail them out this time!

Happyman42 · 15-04-2013 11:59PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh dear, did someone criticise st Gerry?

He milked the hungerstrikes for all they were worth and used them to gain political leverage (to the point where he was prepare. To let six men die). That's where the whole Maggie was anti Irish rhetoric comes from.

He pretty much repeated it in his little rant when she died.

You'll have to show us where he said she was 'anti Irish'.

Fratton Fred · 16-04-2013 12:02AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain is ushering in austerity that hasn't been seen since Maggie herself to attempt to get themselves out of the ****storm caused by the meltdown of financial markets which began in America. The Euro isn't perfect, but it didn't cause the crisis and the crisis has affected everywhere.
God help the British if Maggie was still in power today, she believed in a top down economy, guess who and where would be getting laid waste again to bail them out this time!

The Euro didn't cause the crisis, the crisis exposed the problems with the Euro.

The UK had too much money during the boom and was overspending, it also had one of the biggest culprits in the collapse it had to bail out.

None of this has anything to do with Thatcher though.

Fratton Fred · 16-04-2013 12:04AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

You'll have to show us where he said she was 'anti Irish'.

I'm just looking fir a possible root of what must be a myth. So we can agree she wasn't anti Irish then?

end of the road · 16-04-2013 12:08AM

Melanoma wrote: »

She dead folks, debating her life now is a waste of time. Lets debate how to get more tourism in to the country develop more cross border trade and greater use of each others cultures to create brands international markets will pay a premium for.

feel free to start a thread debating such issues, meanwhile we'l continue to debate about the life and times of the old boot

true · 16-04-2013 12:15AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain is ushering in austerity

because labour took on huge wasteful numbers in its public service and squandered money as only labour knows how to best. Its also ushering in austerity because of the recession in Europe, it still contributes money to Europe and because its helping to bail out poor countries, like IMF rescued us.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Euro isn't perfect,

You can say that again....if our bankers could / did not borrow so much off the german bankers during the boom, when interest rates were set to suit the german economy rather than ours, we would not be in this mess. Neither would every other country in the Eurozone be in such a huge mess. A mess yes, but not as big. And the Eurozone crises is not over yet, not by a long shot. The show has hardly started yet.

Happyman42 · 16-04-2013 12:23AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm just looking fir a possible root of what must be a myth. So we can agree she wasn't anti Irish then?

I couldn't care less if she was or not, my opinion of her has nothing much to do with her personally, as I didn't know her, it's more what she did.

On the Euro thing, it was John Major who negotiated Britain out of the euro not Maggie, she was the PM that signed the Single European Act.

R P McMurphy · 16-04-2013 08:01AM

true wrote: »

You can say that again....if our bankers could / did not borrow so much off the german bankers during the boom, when interest rates were set to suit the german economy rather than ours, we would not be in this mess. Neither would every other country in the Eurozone be in such a huge mess. A mess yes, but not as big. And the Eurozone crises is not over yet, not by a long shot. The show has hardly started yet.

I assume you can substantiate that as in giving an idea of how much money was loaned into the irish economy from german banks in comparison to uk banks?

Happyman42 · 16-04-2013 09:29AM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I assume you can substantiate that as in giving an idea of how much money was loaned into the irish economy from german banks in comparison to uk banks?

Substantiate??? It was in the Daily Mail ffs!

Mr Tibbs · 16-04-2013 10:10AM

She did not give him political aslum as she was long since retired then.[/QUOTE]

No other country would allow him inside their borders. Gee when the Nazi's were being rounded up all over the world after WW2 why didn't they plead that they were retired. It seems the disappeared have no voice and become unimportant when world leaders instead of using diplomacy decide to go to war. 19 and 20 yr old's are expendable sure give their families medals and tell them their children died bravely and are hero's now.

Fratton Fred · 16-04-2013 10:27AM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

No other country would allow him inside their borders. Gee when the Nazi's were being rounded up all over the world after WW2 why didn't they plead that they were retired. It seems the disappeared have no voice and become unimportant when world leaders instead of using diplomacy decide to go to war. 19 and 20 yr old's are expendable sure give their families medals and tell them their children died bravely and are hero's now.

What? Britain didn't give Pinochet asylum, he was arrested and placed under house arrest before being returned to Chile.

MT and George Bush campaigned for him not to be tried, but she was retired and pretty much irrelevant by then.

Mr Tibbs · 16-04-2013 10:52AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What? Britain didn't give Pinochet asylum, he was arrested and placed under house arrest before being returned to Chile.

MT and George Bush campaigned for him not to be tried, but she was retired and pretty much irrelevant by then.

Please stop George Bush's predecessor being Ronald Reagan armed this man's army. It is well documented that the CIA were operating in Chile when Pinochet was murdering his own people. Democratically elected President Salvador Allende was overthrown and murdered with help of the CIA and Pinochet was the puppet put in his place. This was common foreign policy by The United States In Latin America for years branding any leader with Socialist belief's a Communist. Bishop Oscar Romero is a great example of this extreme right wing policy. I will give you credit though you have not defended the action's of The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Fratton Fred · 16-04-2013 11:29AM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

Please stop George Bush's predecessor being Ronald Reagan armed this man's army. It is well documented that the CIA were operating in Chile when Pinochet was murdering his own people. Democratically elected President Salvador Allende was overthrown and murdered with help of the CIA and Pinochet was the puppet put in his place. This was common foreign policy by The United States In Latin America for years branding any leader with Socialist belief's a Communist. Bishop Oscar Romero is a great example of this extreme right wing policy. I will give you credit though you have not defended the action's of The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I haven't defended anybody's actions, simply pointing out that you are wrong, the UK did not give Pinochet asylum. Is that difficult to understand?

I tried writing slower this time to make it easier for you.

Mr Tibbs · 16-04-2013 11:58AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I haven't defended anybody's actions, simply pointing out that you are wrong, the UK did not give Pinochet asylum. Is that difficult to understand?

I tried writing slower this time to make it easier for you.

Sure all they had to do was send him to Spain, he would have been tried as a War criminal there. We will agree to disagree here because obviously we are never going to agree with each other. I will respect your views as I will respect Margaret Thatcher's memory tomorrow as she is laid to rest. I always found it unpleasant viewing watching clips of a once iron lady reduced to a frail shadow due to alzheimer's disease even though I never liked her politics. I found her very insulting at times as a lot of her follower's are also.

I didn't type this slower because I know it will never get easier for you to agree with somebody who you obviously think you are superior to just like your hero.

Fratton Fred · 16-04-2013 12:02PM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

Sure all they had to do was send him to Spain, he would have been tried as a War criminal there. We will agree to disagree here because obviously we are never going to agree with each other. I will respect your views as I will respect Margaret Thatcher's memory tomorrow as she is laid to rest. I always found it unpleasant viewing watching clips of a once iron lady reduced to a frail shadow due to alzheimer's disease even though I never liked her politics. I found her very insulting at times as a lot of her follower's are also.

I didn't type this slower because I know it will never get easier for you to agree with somebody who you obviously think you are superior to just like your hero.

What are we disagreeing on exactly?

Mr Tibbs · 16-04-2013 12:33PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What are we disagreeing on exactly?

House arrest in luxury is as good as asylum to me. Send him to Spain I say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/304516.stm

Happyman42 · 16-04-2013 12:40PM

The Pinochet shame is on both the Con and Lab governments, firstly Thatcher for actively supporting and taking aid from him. 'Any port in a storm' being the dangerous moral failing.
Jack Straw and Tony Blair (Lab) chose to ignore international law and a new precedent in world juristiction by relying on UK legislation to allow Pinochet to return to Chile and not to Spain as the court decreed. You shudder to think what favour was being repaid that saw both political creeds bend over backwards to defend this tyrant.
No democrat can seriously defend this shameful conduct by the UK government over this man.

Fratton Fred · 16-04-2013 01:49PM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

House arrest in luxury is as good as asylum to me. Send him to Spain I say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/304516.stm

Yeah, he should have been sent to Spain, I'm not sure what jack straw was playing at.

Plenty of extradition cases take 18 months though and house arrest is the norm if the person isn't a danger. Julian assange for example.

Mr Tibbs · 16-04-2013 03:27PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yeah, he should have been sent to Spain, I'm not sure what jack straw was playing at.

Plenty of extradition cases take 18 months though and house arrest is the norm if the person isn't a danger. Julian assange for example.

Yes I will agree with you there the Labour party did not cover themselves in glory either.

Happyman42 · 16-04-2013 03:39PM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

Yes I will agree with you there the Labour party did not cover themselves in glory either.

Isn't it funny how the order is always maintained no matter who is in government?

Spook_ie · 16-04-2013 04:04PM

Re Pinochet

Despite his release on grounds of ill-health, the unprecedented detention of Pinochet in a foreign country for crimes against humanity committed in his own country, without a warrant or request for extradition from his own country, marks a watershed in international law. Some scholars consider it one of the most important events in judicial history since the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. Judge Garzón's case was largely founded on the principle of universal jurisdiction—that certain crimes are so egregious that they constitute crimes against humanity and can therefore be prosecuted in any court in the world. The British House of Lords ruled that Pinochet had no right to immunity from prosecution as a former head of state, and could be put on trial.[18] In Spain, the Court of Appeal of the Audiencia Nacional affirmed Spanish jurisdiction over Argentine and Chilean cases, declaring that domestic amnesty laws (in the case of Chile, the 1978 amnesty law passed by Pinochet's regime) could not bind the Spanish courts.[7] Both for matters concerning the "Dirty War" in Argentina and for Chile, they characterized the crimes as genocides.[7] However, both the Spanish and British decision did not rely on international law, but on domestic legislation: "They talked about universal jurisdiction, but grounded their decision in domestic statutory law."[7]

So the problem would appear to have been that the extradition to Spain from the UK was based on foot of domestic statutory law rather than international law wasn't being extradited to Spain from the UK under foot of international law but domestic statutory law, it is also important to note that the extradition was also opposed by Chile and was heading for a diplomatic spat with Spain

Still struggling with the conditions set by the difficult transition to democracy, the Chilean government of the Concertación, then headed by President Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, opposed his arrest, extradition to Spain, and trial.

There was a hard-fought 16-month legal battle in the House of Lords, the then highest court of the United Kingdom.[6] Pinochet claimed immunity from prosecution as a former head of state under the State Immunity Act 1978. This was rejected, as the Lords decreed that some international crimes, such as torture, could not be protected by former head-of-state immunity.[7] The Lords, however, decided in March 1999 that Pinochet could only be prosecuted for crimes committed after 1988, the date during which the United Kingdom implemented legislation for the United Nations Convention Against Torture in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.[7][8] This invalidated most, but not all, of the charges against him; but the outcome was that extradition could proceed. In April 1999, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former US President George H. W. Bush called upon the British government to release Pinochet.[9][10] They urged that Pinochet be allowed to return to his homeland rather than be forced to go to Spain. On the other hand, United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, Mary Robinson, hailed the Lords' ruling, declaring that it was a clear endorsement that torture is an international crime subject to universal jurisdiction.[8] Furthermore, Amnesty International and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture demanded his extradition to Spain.[11] Finally, in protest against Spain's action, Chile withdrew for a time its ambassador from Madrid.[12]

So again more a question of Wrong or Less Wrong policy as seems inherent in the world of politics

Happyman42 · 16-04-2013 04:56PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

So the problem would appear to have been that he wasn't being extradited to Spain from the UK under foot of international law but domestic statutory law,

:D Jesus, talk about selective reading. Wickipedia may not be always accurate but don't distort what it does manage to say.

He was not being 'extradited' at all under domestic or international law, he was being released by the British government. Quite a different thing to what you are trying to imply.

There were then questions about Pinochet's allegedly fragile health. After medical tests, the Home Secretary Jack Straw ruled in January 2000 that he should not be extradited....
Despite the protests of legal and medical experts from several countries, Straw finally ruled, in March 2000, to set free Pinochet and authorize his free return to Chile.[14] Henceforth, on 3 March 2000, Pinochet returned to Chile. His first act when landing in Santiago de Chile's airport was to triumphally stand up from his chair to acclaim his supporters

Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Comments