Recognizedders are universally to have had a visceral patriotism that made them love their country and fight harder for it the interest. No other Prime Ministers before or since inspired quite that same belief, and that is why people ask what would maggie do . I will return to that question in a few minutes, but to do so, describei must first and what is legacy thatcherism. If you want to understand the basic emotional drive of Margaret Thatcher, it is to be found in some words that she addressed to a Television Interviewer toward the close of the 1979 Election Campaign. With the Election Campaign almost over, she felt able for a moment to let down her guard, and she exclaimed i cannot bear britain in decline. I just cannot bear it. That outburst was completely sincere and prophetic. Thatcherism was designed to halt and reverse the decline of britain. Margaret thatcher was a practical politician rather than a philosopher, and her legacy was the record and result of practical responses facing britain today. Initially, reversing britains decline was seen as are an economic term because the most obvious problem were economic ones. Her remedies were cautious, flexible and responsive to those problems as they crossed the governments past. As far as they were rooted in ideology, they were drawn from the anglo religion of economics. As was pointed out in a fine study, the anatomy of thatcherism, it had been brought to first the both parties and was seen as a conservative as much as the Classical Liberal one. It was also an intellectually normal tradition with most of the problems facing the new government. Above all, the most obvious rival sect of economic solutions, central democratic version, seemed to have come to the end of its tether. They were strikes that brought britain to a standstill in what became known as the winter of discontent. Thatcherism had a strong claim to become a new, economic sense of following the implosion of postwar consensus economics, but that sure is but thatcherism was never purely economic set of ideas. When britain interest is challenge from other directions, mrs. Thatcher drew another on other relevant traditions, notably on the tradition of toughminded National Interest realism and liberal internationalism to justify what the patriotic purposes were of the day. Moreover, thatcherized impulses, whether in economics work policy, were not the final determinants of policy. A fierce hatred was governed by a practical prudence and two central victories in the whiners falklands war show that this is so. She did not expect or plan for an argentinian seizure of the falklands, but politics of Natural Regeneration could hardly refuse such challenge. Though she was annoyed by mediation efforts, she let them play out until the end and she took calculated risks. Only after she had digested the best economic and diplomatic and military advice. At several points, she often concessions to aires and populated greater dangers. She maneuvered to victory as much as moving boldly. Similarly, she threatened the miners Union Demands in 1981, when she was informed that britain had coal stocks to resist strikes, but she had once began the build up of coal stocks and other preparations to resist strikes that might come later. When it did come three years later, she defeated it. These two outright political bit victories ran counter to the usual british politics of compromising and splitting the difference. Together, with prominence and cold war diplomacy and success of Economic Policy, they established or domestic dominance, entrenched her economic and labor Union Reforms as a new consensus in british politics and elevated the international profile. In foreign affairs, mrs. Thatcher personally played a crucial role in helping other western european governments to resist the powerful piece movement, thus getting u. S. Stationed in southwestern europe. She brought together reagan toward ending the cold war peacefully at the various summits in the mid to late 1980s. To be sure, thatcher was obviously subordinate partner in the thatcherreagan relationship on military and diplomatic policy. Given the relative size to the economies and militaries, it could hardly have been otherwise. Indeed, she should also have been the junior partner in terms of economic influence, too. But she was not. It is mrs. Thatcher who will be regarded by history as the more influential and revolutionary economic reformer. Why should that be so . In the first place, the recovery of the british economy in the 1980s was more impressive because it started a lower economic point and occurred in the more leftwing country. Jimmy carter, who was good at ruining an economy, did not match the socialists who had been running britain for the postwar time, and this was harder position to overcome. She had to regulate the market and had to overcome resistance from the west as well as from labor. Finally, the reforms had major nonparliamentary challenges from the labor unions. Once the miners were defeated, the british economy joined the american one in providing a demonstration effect of what freemarket reforms could accomplish in a relatively short time. Those demonstration effects are not identical. Privatization was britains. Of the two, privatization turned out to be more important globally. Since both third world and werete economies readymade solutions. When privatization succeeded, it was the most unlikely converts that took note. Thatcher, even more than reagan, posed the economic challenge to the soviet union. Either reform or fall behind further to the capitalist west. A comparison between the british economy after a decade of economics and the continuing stagnation of the soviet economy after 70 years of communism was simply too embarrassing to ignore. Once perestroika was introduced, however it very rapidly destroyed the communist system it was designed to save. In once the command economies of the soviet bloc collapsed, revealing the extraordinary wasteland produced, it was the thatcher model that new marker sourced toed emulate. It was thatcher to whom it the ministersy mr. s such as czechoslovakias and estonias look to as a model of socialistorm the economy. They say as much as today. More subtly, the postcommunist societies follow the thatcher model more quickly and their economies rose from the dead. It was not only in the postcommunist world that Margaret Thatcher was seen as an inspiration. Thatcherism had a good role in asia and africa, the reduction of trade and capital movements, privatization, the better , these of public debt became the new conventional wisdom in ministries of finance around the globe. Broad result, globalization, became the watchword of world banks. Now, there arent naturally points of view much more critical of the thatcher legacy then you have heard from me. Her economichat policies simply failed. It is undoubtedly true that some errors were made in the watcher years. It is hard to imagine any government that does not make some errors. But they were far outweighed by the economic successes of thatcherism, noticeably a sustained rise in productivity. Some successes were evident at the time. She left britain as the worlds fourth largest economy. The general success continued through the administrations write up to the 2008 financial crisis. Indeed, on becoming chancellor in 1997 after the labor of it or he, gordon brown was given a treasury reefing and it was concluded with the words these are wonderful figures. Replied, what do you want me to do . Send a thank you note . Even if these were correct though, they would not be a her work. Record of her privatization revolution had defeated the miners. Her role along reagan defeated communism. These were important and beneficial even if they had contributed nothing to economic improvement. Which of course they did. Criticisms oft those achievements, but it is simply not possible to persuade openminded people that are substantial failures or political disaster doors. The labor and liberal democratic toties continued dislike them but they did not propose there repeal or rejection. The exception to this is the European Union. Most critics believe it was an historical a historical error that her party and the country would see an retrospect. Until the last few months, it is split down the middle of whether the future are truly european. It looked as though her critics might be right. But it is clear that this question is still in open one and since her views will let him to do influence others, the referendum debate on what would maggie do began. Charles the lord water wrote an opening salvo. He argued that she would vote yes in the brexit referendum. Charles was Lady Thatchers closest collaborator on foreign policy. This closeness is indicated that they were the only other guest at the dinner party and sir dennis gave to the president and mrs. Reagan. On his last official visit to britain there were six people around that table and charles and his wife were among them. He remained a close and devoted friend to Lady Thatcher right until the day of his death. In fact, he was the last friend to see her. I think his opinion demands respect. So does the opinion of probably robin harris. He was an advisor to mrs. Archer, head of the conservative Research Department and before that, one who helped with their biography, as i did, and has helped with the state and helped her with her final book. He declares adamantly i know that margaret would have fought for brexit with all of her strength. Charles is judgment was seconded by a former minister and thatchers cabinet. The judgment was succumbed by a more politically substantial one. Also, i recall by you. Weighing in from the sidelines was charles moore, the distinguished most recent biographer. Who in the spec tater cautiously not usually does speculate on what mrs. Thatcher might have done about issues ,hat took place after her death but he concludes that in the end, yes, she had firmly and privately confirmed brexit by the end of her life. This is a distinguished list of magnificos. Who is right . I customarily take the same position as charles when asked what mrs. Thatcher would have done about the iraq war, brexit or anything else. In the strict this sense, it is impossible to know what someone would have done about an event at your his or her death for the simple reason that deceased did not know it the circumstances in which the event takes place. Circumstances which some gentlemen pass for nothing have in reality every article and support its distinguishing color and discriminating affect. Everyrcumstances are what political either beneficial or noxious to mankind. In this case, charles would presumably argue that the reforms Prime MinisterDavid Cameron brought back from his European Tour with britain and his relationship with that were a real improvement in the European Union and thus favorable circumstances that would move a revived Lady Thatcher to vote may and the referendum. Wouldy, robin harris undoubtedly responded these were so trivial that they would undoubtedly render it less noxious to britain but they would lead to Lady Thatcher voting for her desire to leave. Given all of the facts of the case, when that happens, we bring all her personal biases to making sets judgments and we risk furthering our own opinions on the deceased. That said, we need not observe the strict test standards in such policies in the interest of reaching a common sense verdict, in this case what maggie would have done. Must that possibly, we test the reasons that these wellinformed and intelligent people get for holding such opposing views. Robin harris and his side have the most straightforward task. They simply state things she lastin public, in her book, in her public speeches, and in private conversations criticizing the European Union. They criticized federal ambitions and the direction of travel. Some of her public statements go to the very brink of indicating withdrawal from the eu. She went further in private and told a number of people that she wanted to withdraw. Charles did not deny this but argued that there were effectively two thatchers who veered backandforth between her rhetoric and irrational decisions. He says she could be as harsh as most harsh european skip take and then would settle for the best in what she could get in european negotiations. There is undoubtedly a great deal of truth in the picture that charles paints. On a few occasions, i was in the room when she did exactly that. She was blowing off steam and frustration at the antics of british and european partners. What she had to concede and sometimes would concede later considered that she made a mistake. Charles in my view would be less than human if believing in the cause as he does, he did not also believe that he would be able to work out a similar deal with her on this occasion to state with europe on better terms. Version iswhich closer to a dispassionate reality . Let me suggest three criteria of judgment. Place, though there were occasions when mrs. Thatcher formulated in private and conceded later and public, her public statements were almost always invariably cautious, well calculated, and reflective of her intended policy. Life, herleft public speeches in the European Union were almost uniformly critical on security, on into true into domestic policy, and on the weakening of national sovereignty. Here is an ex heres an excerpt from a speech she gave to the congress of prod in 1996. The congress of prague in 1996 the overall european federalist project, which was envisaged by some from the start, but which is only in recent years come out into the open, is in truth a nightmare. From her book that such an unnecessary and irrational project as building the european superstate was ever embarked on would seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era, and that britain with traditional strengths in global destiny should ever have been part of it will appear to be a political error of historic magnitude. I think it is hard to accept that this consistent line of argument in more than a decade was the case of blowing off steam that she would discard, and secondly, although she did change of mind, she did not zigzag on europe and go back and forth in policy terms. There is a clear trajectory in her career that takes it from being unenthusiastic endorser of u. K. Membership in the 1975 referendum to growing disenchantment with it as Prime Minister to her later severe witticisms. Butmoved erratically euroskeptic in a direct shunt. She made the groundwork for making the European Union more habitable institution for the british union. She obtained a financial rebate for the u. K. Cost excessive payment to brussels. It also true that big gave still more sovereignty to brussels. It is hard to imagine her voting for a european order that means that sovereignty rest with the European Court of justice rather than at westminster. The only way to remedy this is with brexit, all of which inclines me to the robin harris side of the argument. It seems to be obvious that the woman who said i cannot stand britain in decline, i cannot just stand it, would be appalled by the remain i am that bases in the case or the eu that in arguments that britains fifthlargest economy in the world, thanks to her, is too small and feeble to exist outside of the german rhine. Im already on the brexit side of the argument, so we must keep the theme of bias of my own views. Let me try to go deeper into thatcherism rather than consider what mrs. Thatcher as a political leader would have said. In her important study of thatcherism, mrs. Latcher argued that thatcherism drew more broadly on the distinctive english morality and in sophisticated books, she argues that since medieval times, it is distinguished between reason and the passions. Reason should be invested in a government powerful enough to control the unruly passions of its citizens. The english however have developed a different view of the passions, but is integrated with them in a single faculty. Reason is a faculty that enables human beings to interpret and respond to experience as they well. A Creative Power that allows people to choose differently from others and what they did yesterday. So an individual is neither a mechanical effect of later nor ager social causes plaything of his or her unruly passions. This is what she writes. In this picture then, a human king possessed of its faculties is never really just potters clay. He is both potter and clay. He necessarily decides what to make of whatever happens to him. Those choices should be respected. Social and Political Institutions should not be their permanent guardians, imposing desires butt arrangements and a them to make choices without pumping into each other and therefore allowing them maximum freedom in doing so. The writer believes that thatcherism is the recovery of this for most lost english social vision. She does not leave mrs. Thatcher herself had the same vision selfconsciously or thought through its various implications. Empty, she know she has not because the two women were good friends. But she intuits that mrs. Thatcher, in part because she at from provincial england heart, had held fast to the remnants of this traditional morality when it was retreating before the advancement of the socialist ideas in a metropolis. View wascher in this rather like an amateur singer, who was unable to read a note of music but hold a tune, sings that othersr youth have forgotten that until her singing stars in their memory. In her view, it there was a surprisingly swift revival of latents virtues and enterprise. A swift recovery of britain industry and the economy once given thatcherite freedoms. I neednt an share this entire analysis in order to see thatcherism as the recovery of those forgotten songs. They are an unforgettable spirit of individual. All once and compassed english people and crossed both parties. Now they mark a new division between those who resonate to the older liberal spirit and to those converted to the new constructivist vision of europe. You may have thought my argument were reason and conflict abstra