Things Mrs Margaret Thatcher didn't do

It was never placed into law, but the proposal was discussed in parliament by both Labour and Conservative governments. In 1967, the Labour Government in Britain said it would cede sovereignty given certain conditions. This claim angered the islanders because 97% of them were British and wanted to remain as such. They continued to voice their position in Parliament, and in 1973 they formed the UK Falkland Islands Committee, designed to protect the interest of the islanders. While it appears the British Foreign Office would have liked to give sovereignty to the Argentines, the committee and the powerful Falkland Islands Lobby successfully shot down every such proposal. For example, in 1980, Nicholas Ridley, the Foreign Office minister responsible for the islands, travelled to the Falklands’ capital of Stanley and convinced many islanders of the value of a lease-back agreement, under which Argentine sovereignty would be recognized immediately but control would not pass to them for 99 years. However, even this proposal was beaten by the Falkland Islands Lobby in London. In this way, no meaningful progress was made.

The reason I am raising this issue is to show that respective governments did not not want retain a sovereign claim to the Islands and were actively debating leasing them back to Argentina. The Tories did not believe their would be an invasion, demonstrated by the removal of the naval protection ( When Lord Carrington personally pleaded with Thatcher not to bring back HMS Endurance as this would give a signal to the Argentina Junta that we didn’t care about the Islands she disregarded his comments with out asking for any clarification) for the Islands before 1980 and leaving a token force of Royal Marines on the Islands and South Georgia (Major Simon Ewen Southby -Tailyour, senior officer of the Royal Marines on the Falklands in1979, stated that the Foreign office in London was not interested in the defence of the Islands and had actively tried to prevent him from surveying defence positions).

It may not have been a divorce, but one side would have loved a separation.

reply to post by windsorblue




I hear you...


But in life

# Nearly, # Maybe, # Possibly, # Perhaps, # Should have, #Could have, # Would have

Don't quite cut it !!

Further evidence that Thatcher did not want to retain sovereignty of the Islands was reviled in released government documents in which she was prepared to do a deal with Argentina after the invasion of the Falklands over the status of the islands, including the question of sovereignty, as she came under intense pressure from the US to avoid a military response, government papers released reveal
UK government declarations and rhetoric at the time gave the impression that nothing short of the withdrawal of all Argentinian forces, the reaffirmation of British sovereignty and a return to the position as it was before the invasion would be acceptable. But the papers show Thatcher and her senior ministers were privately adopting a more flexible approach, including allowing a continuing Argentinian presence on the islands.
Less than two weeks after the Argentinian invasion on 2 April 1982, Thatcher described a "diplomatic solution" as being "a considerable prize". She was responding specifically to a plan whereby in return for withdrawing its troops Argentina would be represented on an interim commission and on Falkland Islands councils.
Francis Pym, the foreign secretary, is recorded as saying: "It would be a remarkable achievement if this could be brought about, at a time when Britain's military position was still weak."
Asked in private evidence to the subsequent Franks committee of inquiry about her reaction to the invasion, Thatcher said: "I just say it was the worst, I think, moment of my life," the papers reveal. Asked if she was prepared to cede sovereignty over the islands if the islanders agreed, she replied: "Yes".
The disclosure that Thatcher was contemplating a peaceful solution to the Falklands dispute, even after the British taskforce had set sail, is contained in confidential annexes to cabinet minutes released under the so-called 30-year rule.
Sir John Nott, then defence secretary, said on Thursday he had not been against a negotiated settlement if the Argentinian troops left the islands. "I was always prepared to negotiate. It turned out it was not ever possible, but that's a judgment with hindsight,"
Nott added that Pym was desperate for a negotiated settlement, which had irritated Thatcher. There were plenty of opportunities for a diplomatic settlement but the Argentinian junta was "more intransigent than the prime minister", Nott recalled.
In one paper, stamped Top Secret, Thatcher is recorded as saying that under the plan being discussed by the US and at the UN, "the withdrawal of Argentine forces would have been secured without military action. Argentina would gain representation on the interim commission and on the local councils; and a commitment to negotiations to decide the definitive status of the islands by the end of the year, although without any commitment to a transfer of sovereignty." She added: "Repugnant as it was that the aggressor should gain anything from his aggression, this seemed an acceptable price to pay.
"But it would be crucial to insure against a second invasion and the best way of achieving this appeared to be to involve the United States government in the enforcement of the interim agreement and in the security of the Islands thereafter."
On 19 May, two days before British forces landed on the islands, Thatcher told the war cabinet that in a "sincere attempt to reach agreement to avoid bloodshed", Britain had not insisted on what should be its "full and just demands". Any interim deal, however, must ensure there would be "no prejudgment of the longer-term future".
The war cabinet noted: "In practical terms, administration mattered more than sovereignty." If only this would have worked, how many lives would have been saved?....but like you said dreams and wishes don’t cut it the real world.

reply to post by windsorblue


Hi windsorblue i must say i'm enjoying reading the posts yourself and eletheia are firing back and forward it takes me for ever reading them i end up having to read them twice and i'm learning a lot from the both of you. Your both very smart cookies, christina was as well but she's a busy woman and i suppose she can't be in two places at once

I was wanting to ask you something but i might have picked it up wrong when i was reading your post but did you come from the Falkland Islands or is it just a big interest you have i no you don't live there now of course but when you where younger?

No I'm not from the Falklands, but I did live and work there for six months. There is still minefields and war relics all over the Islands, I wouldnt want to go back there, far to bleak and cold for my liking.

reply to post by windsorblue


Good lord

Is it as lovely as the pictures you see? it kind of reminds me of a place in N.Ireland called Islandmagee i used to have a wee cottage there. Right down to the bleak and cold bit lol but it was lovely when the sun came out.

Have you ever visited the Sheltand Islands? Its virtually identical ( I lived there for years)..no trees and winds so strong it could blow your boots off...scenically its very beautiful once it stops snowing or raining and the sun gracious it's shores with a visit. The Falkland Islanders themselves are very nice people and do not hold any malice towards the Argentines, talking to the ones that lived through the Invasion they had nothing but sympathy for the conscripts who were forced to engage in furious fighting with some of the most highly trained regiments in the Western World. The soldiers down there I met also had nothing but respect for the Argentine soldiers that died, but really didn’t want to be there, one of the remarks I often heard them say was ' Why the (expletive) have we travelled 16,000 miles to defend an Island only 500 miles away from Argentina?' I always got the impression that (and this is only my opinion) that they wanted too give the Islands back and bugger off back home. But since there seems to be a large oil reserve discovered in the Falklands area that will never happen, but what would we do if they Invaded again? We have no Aircraft carriers and the armed forces have been cut to the bone, lets just hope the diplomats can sort something out that wont lead to any more loss of life.