[article] Thatcher considered taking vote from Irish in UK

IIMII

Interesting line in here from Thatcher comparing the Irish and the Blacks in the States, I presume in a reference to problematic minorities as she seems to have seen it..

Thatcher considered taking vote from Irish in UK

Irish Times, JOHN BEW in London
Wed, Dec 30, 2009
FORMER BRITISH prime minister Margaret Thatcher considered taking the vote away from Irish citizens living in the UK, and bringing them “fully within the UK’s immigration laws” just days before the worst IRA atrocities of 1979, records released after 30 years show.
A newly released document at the National Archives in London describes a tense meeting between Mrs Thatcher and Humphrey Atkins, the Northern Ireland secretary, at Downing Street on August 23rd, 1979.
This was four days before the assassination of Lord Mountbatten and the murder of 18 British soldiers at Warrenpoint. The meeting concerned the proposed visit of New York governor Hugh Carey to Ireland.
A furious Mrs Thatcher banned Mr Atkins from meeting him, following reports that he was planning to put pressure on the British government over Northern Ireland. She “would not think of discussing with President Carter, for example, US policy towards their black population”.
Mrs Thatcher continued: “The Americans must be made to realise that for so long as they continued to finance terrorism, they would be responsible for the deaths of US citizens (as had happened in the Hilton Hotel explosion in Belfast) as well as others. They must realise that while this went on, the British government would attack and condemn them.
“The UK should not be perpetually on the defensive: governor Carey had already got away with a great deal so far as UK public opinion was concerned.”
Mr Atkins told Mrs Thatcher he wished to persuade Michael O’Kennedy, the minister for foreign affairs, “to accept the view that the IRA was a terrorist organisation, posing as much threat to the Irish Republic as to the UK”. At this point, part of their discussion has been deleted, and embargoed for 40 years.
Mrs Thatcher replied that “she did not believe this – there was no evidence of hostility between the Irish Republic on the one hand and the IRA on the other” and the only way to bring the Irish government into line on security was to consider restrictions against Irish people in the UK.
Anglo-Irish relations deteriorated further after the Mountbatten and Warrenpoint murders. The British government even discussed the possibility of sanctions against Ireland unless it secured better co-operation on security.
A deal on security was eventually agreed on October 5th. By the time Mrs Thatcher met Rev Ian Paisley on November 12th, to discuss the DUP leader’s concerns about security, she had moderated her position.
She told him she had got more co-operation on security from an Irish government than any previous British prime minister and warned Dr Paisley not to say anything that would jeopardise the Anglo-Irish relationship or Mr Lynch, who “has his own problems”.
© 2009 The Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1230/1224261408881.html

who the fug

Should point out that at the time British citzens could not vote in the republic

diverdriver

who the fug wrote: »

Should point out that at the time British citzens could not vote in the republic

Actually they could albeit not officially. This was Ireland after all and one only had to ask. As one English friend of mine did when a canvassing politician called to his door. A couple of days later a polling card duly arrived.:P

As for Thatcher the article amply demonstrates her ignorance of Ireland in the early days of her regime. It reminds of the commonly expressed view in England that they should bomb Dublin in retaliation for bombings in England.

The Irish government didn't need reminding of the threat posed by the IRA on this side of the border. The IRA while not actively hostile were a threat and exercised it occasionally. The Irish government spent more per capita on security than the British did.

She learned fast though as the last sentence demonstrates. But other articles about her now released show that when first elected she had some seriously daft notions.

who the fug

You be right there about Irish security and draconian laws in the republic , English people are always amazed when I tell them you could get locked up in the Republic on the say so of a Senior police officer.


Was it in 78/79 they went to the wire over hanging those two who murdered a police officer in Louth

getz

diverdriver wrote: »

Actually they could albeit not officially. This was Ireland after all and one only had to ask. As one English friend of mine did when a canvassing politician called to his door. A couple of days later a polling card duly arrived.:P

As for Thatcher the article amply demonstrates her ignorance of Ireland in the early days of her regime. It reminds of the commonly expressed view in England that they should bomb Dublin in retaliation for bombings in England.

The Irish government didn't need reminding of the threat posed by the IRA on this side of the border. The IRA while not actively hostile were a threat and exercised it occasionally. The Irish government spent more per capita on security than the British did.

She learned fast though as the last sentence demonstrates. But other articles about her now released show that when first elected she had some seriously daft notions.

she was never liked in the UK,but most overseas goverments loved her,i think every country has its idiots at times, remember irelands plan to send a invasion force into northern ireland ?now how daft was that

McArmalite

diverdriver wrote: »

The Irish government spent more per capita on security than the British did.

Yes I believe they were spending a billion a year back as far as 1980 to prop up british occupation. That's the thing about partition, our great little political leaders since the Treaty have probably 10 or more times as much spent propping up the occupied counties. All to preserve the cronyism and cosyness of political life in the ' Free State '.

McArmalite

getz wrote: »

she was never liked in the UK,

Then why did the brits relect her several times.

but most overseas goverments loved her,

Apart from the Yanks as she was just acting as America's bitch, even more so than Blair, all to give the british public the impression of mighty britain the great global power post Malvinas conflict. From what I remember, she had more bitching matches with the EU with at one point the German Chancellor requesting that he should not have to share a seat beside her at a banquet. Even Garret Fitzgerald -and that's saying something - was forced to walk out of a meeting in Brussels with her obstinacy.

i think every country has its idiots at times, remember irelands plan to send a invasion force into northern ireland ?now how daft was that

It was about as daft as saying that the IRA would practically take over South Armagh and other areas of the border for almost 25 years while the british army could only travel by air to set up the odd check point here and there. Indeed Slab Murphy, Martin McGuinness in Free Derry could plan and prepare missions to blow up Thatcher and her cabinet, Airy Neave in the House of Commons, blow up the centre of London and Manchester, kill Mrs Windsor's cousin Mountbatten - and all as these same fellas could walk around Crossmaglen and the Bogside and give TV interviews etc No RAF or divisions of brit soldiers bombing Marty McGuinness's house in the Bogside or Slab Murphy's farmhouse in South Armagh

If Lynch and co. had a fraction of the nationalism and guts of these men had down north, the whole troubles would have been avoided. Instead all they were interested in was appeasing britain and maintaining political life as much as possible down here instead of ending partiton by standing up to britain like Egypt did during Suez and Iceland during the Cod War etc. Anything to preserve the ' Free State ' and it's utterly corrupt political culture.

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

Then why did the brits relect her several times.

For the same reason that FF were re-elected here. The opposition's leaders were un-electable, and their manifestos stank.

In the UK, as much as people hated Thatcher, the swing-voters never wanted Michael Foot to become Prime Minister. As soon as he announced that the UK would be ditching nuclear weapons, you could say that he shot himself in the foot. The man was a fool, and Kinnock wasn't much better.

I met quite a few true-blue Tories who hated Thatcher's guts, but they still went along with it because the opposition wasn't viable. In the end the Tories got some balls and got rid of her themselves.