mary robinson

cena

Was mary the best president Ireland ever had?

Twinkleboots

Most definitely!

Joekers

No

bleg

Without a doubt. Incredible person.

mike65

The best president plays golf and is hardly seen or heard.

wonderfulname

Easily. One of the most impressive individuals our country ever had outside of that as well.

ejmaztec

The two Marys were the best presidents that Ireland ever had, and all of the other presidents pale into insignificance, including the one we got lumbered with on the last occasion.

My name is URL

She managed to piss off a load of right-wing pro-Israel nutjob groups like AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League so that's a plus in my book!

losthorizon

The Americans dont like her. She had to quit her job from the UN because of sustained pressure from the US government.

suicide_circus

losthorizon wrote: »

The Americans dont like her. She had to quit her job from the UN because of sustained pressure from the US government.

Why don't they like her?

The two Marys (should that be Maries? Ha) were absolutely brilliant and definitely did our country proud. I think Michael D. Higgins is doing a good job too.

Pherekydes

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why don't they like her?

Because she's a liberal/leftie.

Though it should be noted that she quit in 2002, and it had nothing to do with the current US regime.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

No. She wore trousers most of the time. Terrible fashion sense.

jhegarty

She had so little respect for the position she quit early when a better offer came along.

mike65

She quit the job halfway through her second term, for a better paid/more prestigious job with the UN, that's how good Robinson was.

dvpower

mike65 wrote: »

She quit the job halfway through her second term, for a better paid/more prestigious job with the UN, that's how good Robinson was.

Did she do it for the money and the prestige?

later12

mike65 wrote: »

She quit the job halfway through her second term, for a better paid/more prestigious job with the UN, that's how good Robinson was.

Not half way; three months before the end. She didn't start a second term.

She stayed in the job for 7 years, and executed it with greater dexterity and depth than any of her predecessors.

She resigned because a new High Commissioner for Human Rights was badly needed at the UN. Nevertheless, she called it the greatest regret of her Presidency a couple of years ago. A bit of perspective maybe.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

dvpower wrote: »

Did she do it for the money and the prestige?

Probably both.

Yamanoto

Mary Robinson was the right person for the job, at precisely the right time.

Here was a woman who'd long campaigned for changes to the Divorce, Contraception and Homosexuality laws of the State, being put before an electorate who were yearning to emerge from the fog of a country retarded socially and economically by an overbearing church and a dull and gutless political cabal.

mike65

/\ that's probably true and all thanks to that gobsh1te Pee Flynn

Teyla Emmagan

Yes. Mary R is an incredible individual. Worth about 10 ordinary politicians. An incredible intellect and a heart in exactly the right place. One of the most significant politicians this country has ever produced.

losthorizon

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why don't they like her?

She criticised the US for violating human rights in its war on terror.

LivelineDipso

That whole Climate Justice thing is a bit silly. Apart from that she did alrght.

later12

It happens that some of the poorest societies are those who will be most affected by climate change.

I think it's a wonderful example of using foresight in order to mitigate an emerging problem rather than waiting until the fuller force of the problem has hit. No doubt Robinson's time at the UN would have convinced her of the importance of early systematic intervention.

You're in the other thread using an almost biblical allegory of a two headed serpent in criticizing the government for a lack of foresight in public transport, so I'd really love to know why, or how, Robinson's campaign for far more important foresight, through her foundation, is "silly".

Anita Blow

mike65 wrote: »

She quit the job halfway through her second term, for a better paid/more prestigious job with the UN, that's how good Robinson was.

1) She left 3 months before her first term ended. Not halfway through.

2) How do you know she left for money/prestige? As far as I was knew, she assumed the role after visiting Rwanda nearing the end of her presidency where she was horrified at what she saw and you could see it in her press conference following it where she was in tears. She did what any person would do in her position when offered a role where she could try to improve the lives of those she saw; she accepted it.

I get that in these matters people are perfectly entitled to have their opinions on whether they like her/don't like her, but I just knew there'd be the typical boards hipsters who go against the grain just for the sake of it. She's an incredibly intelligent and compassionate woman who did the role of Irish President a huge justice, as did Mary McAleese.

Elmer Blooker

My name is URL wrote: »

She managed to piss off a load of right-wing pro-Israel nutjob groups like AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League so that's a plus in my book!

She supported the right wing nutjob DUP when she opposed the Anglo Irish agreement in the 80s. She has never been asked to explain why she opposed an attempt to find a political solution to the conflict in N.Ireland.

Yamanoto

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

She supported the right wing nutjob DUP when she opposed the Anglo Irish agreement in the 80s.

Disingenuous wording at work there methinks.

Wade in the Sea

It's not hard to be the best at something when everyone before you was fairly crap at it.

JupiterKid

Yes - without a doubt.

Mary Robinson modernised and transformed the Presidency, opened up Aras an Uachtaran, was a highly articulate representative of our country and was the perfect President for a 1990s Ireland that was finally catching up with the rest of the developed world.

later12

Yamanoto wrote: »

Disingenuous wording at work there methinks.

Yes it is. Mary Robinson's position on Northern Ireland has been incredibly diplomatic and logical throughout her career. If you were to guess, you might suppose the speech below was delivered by Robinson in 1997. In fact, it is an oration long before its time - I should say 25 years before its time, having been delivered to the Seanad in 1974.

Bear in mind, this was a year in which the troubles were raging, Bloody Sunday was still fresh in people's minds, and just a few years after Operation Armageddon, when the Irish Government were considering sending troops into Northern Ireland. There was a very different prevailing attitude in Dail Eireann at the time to what Robinson was advocating, especially in terms of renouncing territorial claims and advocating power sharing in its place.

It bears a striking resemblance to the GFA which was to come:

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0078/S.0078.197407030005.html

Mrs. Robinson: I should like to second this motion and to welcome the opportunity which it gives us in this House to discuss the position, not only in the North of this country but in these islands. If we try to discuss or assess what is called the problem of Northern Ireland out of that context, [781] we are not going to come up with a balanced, realistic conclusion.

Before going on to carry out that assessment I should like to remind ourselves—if we need reminding—that we are talking about the lives, jobs, relationships and even the dignity as human persons of the people living in this whole geographical territory, more critically those in the North, but also those in this part of the country and in the neighbouring island.

...I would prefer to see a very detailed assessment of the consequences of each type of withdrawal. Taking them separately, regarding the consequences of military withdrawal, I think that it could be very beneficial if a phasing down of military presence in Northern Ireland could be achieved in a constructive way, because it would reduce very substantially the level of violence...

We must do this in a framework where nobody has to give up their political aspirations provided they do not try to impose those aspirations by violent means on others.

I feel that this is a very delicate balance which must be achieved. I do not believe that it is beyond our imaginations or our energies. We will be condemned by future generations unless we get down to it much more seriously and with much more desire for concrete and positive results...

...We cannot go on talking about aspirations and unity unless we are a great deal clearer about what we mean by unity. I, for one, do not see or desire unity as a takeover by the South or as an assertion of territorial domination or even jurisdiction. Not only do I have to state that firmly but I believe I must try to persuade my fellow politicians—the Members of this House—and members of the Government who are in a position to take steps on it, to state in a much more concrete way than has been done that the concept of Ireland is not a concept of domination from the South as the single way in which there can be the fulfilment of any aspiration or national aim for unity.

It is very important, as I said at the beginning, that the political package which emerges is sufficiently flexible to allow both majority and minority to participate in power. I believe that this is negotiable, that it is possible, with the economic and political pressures that can come to bear on those in Northern Ireland, to insist on power sharing between majority and minority and to insist that this can be done in a context which does not require denial or undermining of the aspirations of those who participate.

Also, a much more conscious effort must be made to reinforce the idea that any nationalist aspirations that are held by the minority in Northern Ireland are of the more flexible kind which I hope are emerging here—not a concept of Southern domination or of a takeover, but an aspiration for co-existence between Irish men and women on this island in viable units which offer the basic protections of peace and security, of respect for the dignity of human persons and of absence of discrimination and terrorism.

WhimSock

I thought she was very good in a factual documentary I saw recently called Mooneboy.

MJ23

The two Mary's where great. The lad there now is like a leprecaun.

Gordon Gecko

I certainly don't think she was a good President. In fact I don't think anyone can be good at such a meaningless job. It's a ceremonial, wholly ephemeral position sought by egotistical, self-aggrandizing arseholes like Michael Higgins. When you look at what the job is all they do is live in a big house, sign things (which the Government tells them to) and make meaningless speeches at meaningless events. The election itself consists of 5+ people with an overly inflated sense of self-importance throwing sh1t at each other and whoever is the cleanest by election day gets the job.

Sorry for the diatribe but in response to the OPs original question no, Mary Robinson was in fact awful.

oppenheimer1

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

I certainly don't think she was a good President. In fact I don't think anyone can be good at such a meaningless job. It's a ceremonial, wholly ephemeral position sought by egotistical, self-aggrandizing arseholes like Michael Higgins. When you look at what the job is all they do is live in a big house, sign things (which the Government tells them to) and make meaningless speeches at meaningless events. The election itself consists of 5+ people with an overly inflated sense of self-importance throwing sh1t at each other and whoever is the cleanest by election day gets the job.

Sorry for the diatribe but in response to the OPs original question no, Mary Robinson was in fact awful.

I'd hardly call the position ephemeral, the presidential term is 7 years.

No, Mary Robinson was not our greatest president. I'd give that accolade to Patrick Hillary.

nlgbbbblth

Erskine Childers.

JupiterKid

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

INo, Mary Robinson was not our greatest president. I'd give that accolade to Patrick Hillary.

Completely disagree with you there. Hillary seemed to stay hidden in the Aras all the time and the only thing he ever seemed to show up for was the Bodenstown commemoration and the odd inspection of the army.

Mary Robinson, on the other hand, - whether you liked her or not - raised the profile of the Irish Presidency hugely and modernised it.

Min

Mary Robinson used the presidency to get herself a job on the international stage and a role in the savage eye, among other things.

randylonghorn

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No, Mary Robinson was not our greatest president. I'd give that accolade to Patrick Hillary.

Why?

oppenheimer1

JupiterKid wrote: »

Completely disagree with you there. Hillary seemed to stay hidden in the Aras all the time and the only thing he ever seemed to show up for was the Bodenstown commemoration and the odd inspection of the army.

Mary Robinson, on the other hand, - whether you liked her or not - raised the profile of the Irish Presidency hugely and modernised it.

I would have completely agreed with you there up until quite recently. However when the documents relating to the loss of supply of the Fitzgerald government in '82 were released and the way Hillery reacted to the telephone calls highlights the high integrity of the man and his execution of the actual role of the President.

Its nice that the Presidents do the fluffy stuff on the side now, but that is not part of the constitutional role of the President. Hillery stood up to a bully like Haughey, as well as close former cabinet colleagues and friends, for the good of the Nation. That's what makes a great President.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Why?

LordSutch

Yes.

dublinman1990

I think she was a great president for Ireland.

Her work on she encountered while in Mogadishu still is an inspiration to us all. A famine that still happened after a short gap of 20 years is still in my mind, a very frightening reality.

But, the great thing about it is that the work that can have a huge positive outcome by it's people. We still have to live in reality and face the bad times as they come.

Unfortunately, this phase of sadness in Mogadishu has come in the worst possible form imagined. We in the most developed countries are very lucky to have a meal and a living at the same time; even though, we're weren't so lucky in Ireland long ago.

In many parts of Africa and beyond, there are people going through the same suffering. It is an very unfair routine that needs the International Community to stop it, even completely where it needs be to done.

There are many great people out there who do a great amount of volunteerism within Ireland and outside of it.

And Mary Robinson is IMO one of those great people. And that is why I'd admired her as president and even now.

randylonghorn

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I would have completely agreed with you there up until quite recently. However when the documents relating to the loss of supply of the Fitzgerald government in '82 were released and the way Hillery reacted to the telephone calls highlights the high integrity of the man and his execution of the actual role of the President.

Its nice that the Presidents do the fluffy stuff on the side now, but that is not part of the constitutional role of the President. Hillery stood up to a bully like Haughey, as well as close former cabinet colleagues and friends, for the good of the Nation. That's what makes a great President.

I wouldn't take from Paddy Hillary's integrity, in fairness, but who is to say that Robinson, McAleese or indeed Higgins would have caved any more easily?

Like them / agree with them or not, all three have stood up for what they believed in in their time.

And they haven't sat in the Aras for 7 years twiddling their thumbs and waiting for a constitutional crisis to occur.

oppenheimer1

randylonghorn wrote: »

I wouldn't take from Paddy Hillary's integrity, in fairness, but who is to say that Robinson, McAleese or indeed Higgins would have caved any more easily?

Like them / agree with them or not, all three have stood up for what they believed in in their time.

And they haven't sat in the Aras for 7 years twiddling their thumbs and waiting for a constitutional crisis to occur.

I'm not saying that any other President is not of the highest integrity and would have acted in a similar manner. In fact I would expect them to act in a similar manner absolutely now given Hillery set the precedent. These same questions of integrity were not asked of those Presidents (that we know of) so we don't know what they would have done.

As I said, its nice that the profile of the Presidency has been raised and the Presidency now gets involved in advocacy work with community groups etc. That said however all that fluffy stuff is outside the actual constitutional role of the President. Its a "nice to have" and it wouldn't bother me if the President didn't do it and just concerned his or herself with the constitutionality of legislation. In other words I don't want a President that will stand up for their beliefs, I want a President that will put their beliefs to one side and stand up for the Constitution. Hillery exemplified this.

Zebra3

later12 wrote: »

Not half way; three months before the end. She didn't start a second term.

She stayed in the job for 7 years,

If she left three months early, then she didn't do seven years.