Sabina Higgins Letter to Irish Times calling for ceasefire on Ukraine

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406682#Comment_119406682

You're the one trying to shut down criticism of what she wrote.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406707#Comment_119406707

No, I actually criticised the content Flinty and debated others on it. I object to those who would say she has no right to an opinion. Do read the thread.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406682#Comment_119406682

Rebellions very much were destroyed, just not the "spirit of Rebellion".

In our own conflicts, whose centenaries we have been commemorating, each time the fighting was ended by a ceasefire being called, followed by negotiation. This was so in the 1916 Rising, in the War of Independence, and in our tragic Civil War.

This is objectively false. There categorically was not a ceasefire and negotiations following "each time" there was fighting in Ireland. It definitely wasn't true following the 1916 Rising. It is a shockingly poor understanding of Irish history.

I never said she wasn't entitled to it, just that it is deeply misguided and naive.

Publishing it via the Office of the President was, however, grossly incorrect.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119405206#Comment_119405206

I don't dispute any of that but the point was a simple one - Ukraine are losing the war. Russia holds far more territory than it did in January and Ukraine holds far less territory than it did in January. For all the money, weapons and intelligence that Ukraine have received, that's the reality.

I've been pleasantly surprised by Ukraine's defence, Russia are certainly advancing slower than I thought they would, but they're advancing nonetheless.

Whatever way the war ends, Ukraine surrendering is certainly the least likely.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406728#Comment_119406728

That's a different point to the 'destroyed' one.

I would agree on 1916. But the most recent conflict/war ended with ceasefires and negotiations.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406757#Comment_119406757

Usually it's the fighting that gets them to the table.

Would love to know the chain of events that led to the letter being published on the website, and subsequently taken down. If Sabina is a private citizen then why was it published there?

There’s a strange whiff off this story.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406782#Comment_119406782

Yes agreed. There are those here who seem to be confused about that, In the Irish context nationalism is wrong, evil even, but in Ukraine it is right.

Here, credit goes to those who seen an oppurtunity for peace and grasped the chance. Where would we have been if Hume, for instance was silenced and forbidden to seek a settlement? Or Trimble or Adams for that matter. And there were attempts to do that, even within their own party's (SDLP, SF and the UUP) and in Irish and British media.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406754#Comment_119406754

Most expected Russia to steamroller over the country. They've a massive superiority in numbers 5:1 or higher and equipment.

They were fought to standstill in the north then rotated to the east then south east. All have been effectively stopped. They are making tiny advances and have had to retreat in some significant areas even at sea.

To achieve these gains they've been bled dry. Massive losses in both troops and equipment. They've had to resort to stripping other parts of Russia of units and reactivate 40yr obsolete equipment. They've been shown up as shadow of it's former power. It's technology is dated and in short supply.

The Russian can sustain far heavier loss'es then Ukraine. But not at the rate they have been. Even Russia has limits.

Ukraine has been hoarding it's limited resources by withdrawing east and using the resources its been given and small unit tactics to fight a war of attrition. It's a big country they can retreat for a long time at this rate. But it's not exhaustible either. They made dinner significant gains lately.

That Russia has been fought to an almost standstill and incurred such massive losses, suggests all is not well with Russian military. Putin has been trying to relive old Glories by dragging old bombers back into service and flag flying around Ireland etc. But there more than a whiff of the emperor's new clothes about it.

Gant21

The president will have to intervene in this fiasco.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406834#Comment_119406834

It's has no parallels to the north stop trying to derail every thread to be about Irish Nationalism.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406901#Comment_119406901

I imagine he would very much agree with her. Lately he's been very vocal on a number of issues.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406914#Comment_119406914

Oh give it a rest.

Sabina introduced our experience, it is entirely relevant to the thread.

Don't want to countenance it...scroll on.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406757#Comment_119406757

We’re descending into pretty silly semantics here Francie. As far as I’m concerned the 1798 rebellion was utterly destroyed. You want to claim It wasn’t cause of 1803 or 1848 then fine but we are simply taking different meanings of the word.

She stated all fighting in Ireland ended in ceasefire and negotiations when in fact all but one time it basically ended in unconditional surrender of Irish forces, with executions and mass destruction of Irish people. It’s historically illiterate. Which is just a side comment on the general awfulness of the letter.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406942#Comment_119406942

Well I'd argue 1916 didn't end with the executions and surrender, and was the start of something, but that is for another thread as you say and off topic.

Deub

Her letter is disgusting. It has a bad smell of NIMBY behaviour.

The support was huge at the start of the war and the vast majority agreed with NATO and other countries supporting Ukraine. But now it is start to impact them at home (electricity and gas) some people changed their opinion.

littlevillage

The Government spin doctors and madirins have very effectively kept the lid on this controversy.... Soo far.

donaghs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406901#Comment_119406901

Perhaps he could re-use his Nigeria Church massacre quote for Ukraine? 😉

"All those impacted not only by these horrible events, but in the struggle by the most vulnerable, on whom the consequences of climate change have been inflicted”.

But seriously, he should say something to diffuse this a bit, e.g. show a bit more sympathy for the Ukrainians.

A good distraction though would be for him to bang on again about the Housing Crisis.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407047#Comment_119407047

He has already expressed his own views that Russia must withdraw.

President of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins, has called on Russia to halt the unjustified violence and withdraw troops from Russia in a new statement.

President Michael D. Higgins issues statement on Ukraine crisis: "Every glimmer of hope through diplomacy must be seized" | Hotpress

riddles

I think she can write whatever she likes I know I for one wouldn’t read anything she wrote. Same for that King Brian of the fairies she’s married too - all that crowd like Robinson and McAleese all parasites.

Loading up the bank balances is their key skill set whilst preaching a load of auld tosh.

For the most part I have a lot of admiration for Higgins but that letter is just incredibly naive. Also a bit of an insult to all the displaced Ukrainians.

donaghs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407076#Comment_119407076

Yes, but that was on the 1st of March, 5 months ago now. Whereas Sabina's letter, highlighted on President.ie (before someone took it down), was a few days ago. And I think this changes things.

Also, I think comparison between relatively minor Irish events like the 1916 Rising, and our Civil War, are not really good comparisons with the massive suffering and cataclysm that occurred in Ukraine between 1914 and 1952. ww1, russian civil war (e.g. De-Cossackization - Wikipedia), the 1921 Famine, the much worse 1932 famine, Stalin's purges, ww2, and removal of remaining nationalist resistance up to 1952.

Flinty997

Russia has invaded another country and committed wholesale slaughter and destruction.

It's tone deaf (and arguably morally bankrupt) to imply these events and anything related are in anyway propped up by Ukraine defending itself.

Appeasement won't work when Russia has to long passed the point of no return. Everything they do and say suggests they won't stop with Ukraine. How can you be blind to that.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407145#Comment_119407145

I don't think she was comparing them in scale TBH.

Ten of Swords

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406380#Comment_119406380

Mod - Thread is going off topic, let's get back on track.

Please discuss the letter and/or whether you think it was appropriate for her to send it, as wife of the president.

This is not the place to rekindle arguments from other threads

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406277#Comment_119406277

It is wrong. It allows the aggressor - who is on the ropes now - to reorganise and regroup, bring stocks of ammunition to the front. It will directly lead to more Ukrainians deaths.

Economics101

The Irish Times has milked this letter for all that it's worth. More exposure for the Russian Ambassador, and reactions from Ukrainians which are totally not news - how do you expect them to react to this stupid letter?

The original aphorism about an ambassador being someone sent abroad to lie for his country does not apply here: the remark referred to an honest man being sent abroad,,,,

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119405725#Comment_119405725

Please point out the clause in the constitution which has been breached.

I heard the same "legal" rhetoric when he called out the housing disaster but there is no clause in the constitution preventing him doing so.

cuttingtimber22

Michael D should resign.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407458#Comment_119407458

Read banie01's posts further back in the thread though I can't say if he has definitely breached it. It isn't clear that he definitely hasn't, would love to get a take from a constitutional scholar.

Before Higgins (BH) the President didn't act as a thorn in the side of the Government by putting out a parallel set of policy positions into the public realm.

There is another poster on these threads who likes to say "The days of a FF bully in a cheap suit smoking a fag and telling the President what he can do are long gone." Well okay then but it creates a bit of a headache for the Gov.

growleaves

Will St. Zelensky now add Sabina Higgins or the Preseident to one of his official Ukran. gov lists of furriners who are aiding the Russian foe? 😧

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407507#Comment_119407507

The constitution isn't based on custom & practice. How previous presidents operated is irrelevant. There is no breach here. The boundaries that some experts express are only opinions.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407523#Comment_119407523

Not everything is a purely legal question though.

If he hasn't technically breached the consitution great there's no constitutional crisis phew, but does that mean that he should be putting out statements that run counter to the Government's? I don't think he should and I hope the next President reverses this and embraces political silence.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119405725#Comment_119405725

1000%… That this appeared on the presidential website, Jesus. Absolutely two fingers at the citizens of this country, it’s elected representatives and the democratic values underpinning the state…

if an unelected chancer like Sabina can hijack official state communication platforms to make political statements on behalf of the country …. Why can’t the person who cleans the windows of the Aras ? …or whomever polishes the good china ?

are any of our politicians speaking out ? Can’t see it…

this one has form for this back in 2016 re: her comments on foetal abnormalities..

her name didn’t appear on any ballot paper… by coincidence she was and is married to someone whose name did… and was elected. She has no mandate, nobody voted for her or ‘them’….people voted for Michael. His name was the sole Higgins on the ballot paper.

that no other politicians are speaking out.. ? indicative of how little value the politicians hold our democracy. Just glad to be on the gravy train…. And not rocking the boat.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407545#Comment_119407545

He was 110% spot on when he spoke about the housing disaster. There was no constitution breach technically or otherwise. He had every right to say what he said. What is the point of the presidency if he/she is told what to say by the government? The vast majority of Irish citizens agreed with him on housing and it wasn't the first time she spoke about it.

If you want to gag our president or set opinion boundaries for him, then change the constitution.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407643#Comment_119407643

I agreed with him too, I just don't see it as a political pulpit role.

The point of the Presidency is the constitutional duties associated with it. Playing politics may weaken this posting imo.

growleaves

@Cluedo Monopoly 'If you want to gag our president or set opinion boundaries for him, then change the constitution.'

Er I don't want to 'gag' him. I just hope the next President doesn't imitate him. Having a major branch of Government now involved in politics that wasn't previously is not a good development imo.

I've said why: it undercuts the Government. It undercuts the 'neutral' constitutional role of the President (which can be needed in a crisis).

Also a future President might say things you don't like or agree with. But hey that's fine with you, right?

The letter's been removed from the President's website. I presume there was a negotiated settlement then. She's a disgrace.

And just to portray herself as an extra aloof and out of touch BoBo - add poetry into the insult.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407643#Comment_119407643

The boundaries of the President's ability to opine publicly on policy, national or international are already lain out very plainly in the constitution.

The President is constitutionally bound to pass any such message or address he wishes to deliver past the Govt and can only deliver such a message with their approval.

This is crystal clear in the Constitution. Had Sabina's letter just been published in the IT, embarrassing but certainly explainable as she is her own woman. However, publication of that same message on the official website of the President? That changes the nature of this letter drastically. It gives what amounts to Presidential sanction to a message the President is constitutionally prohibited from giving without seeking Govt authorisation.

Articles 13.7 and 13.9 lay out and define the scope of the President and in particular what independent policy function he has(just to be clear. It is none, he cannot pronounce an opinion without clearing it with Govt).

Even a generous reading of articles 12-14 would leave any reader in no doubt that publication of the letter on the president's website is problematic at the very least.

jmcc

The Indo has now picked up the story and contacted the Aras for a comment.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sabina-higgins-letter-on-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-removed-from-president-of-irelands-website-41878855.html

Regards...jmcc

cheese sandwich

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407643#Comment_119407643

That comment was a blatantly political intervention that was done to distract attention from the criticism he was receiving for spuriously linking a church massacre in Nigeria to climate change. The man is becoming a liability

For full disclosure, the Irish Times and the President of IRL office should produce the original letter, and how it was transmitted.

In the meantime, "Arranged interview with Yuri Fullovit by the Irish Times provides covering fire for BoBo luvvie...."

Broadsheet.ie couldn't have picked a worse time to close, eh SOQ?

Brucie Bonus

It is a somewhat naive call for peace talks based on wanting to see the killing stopped. That's all.

If mick himself had penned it I wouldn't care either. All the outrage is based entirely on interpretation not the letter contents.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407643#Comment_119407643

Spot on about the housing disaster ? Yet he’s been one of the biggest cheerleaders of multiculturalism and inward immigration… seeing our population spike and resources strength to breaking point.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407716#Comment_119407716

Please quote the lines that prohibit the president expressing his opinion on a situation. He was at a homeless shelter expressing his opinion on housing and homelessness. It was not a policy recommendation.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407938#Comment_119407938

Article 13.7

1° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas by message or address on any matter of national or public importance.

2° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the Nation at any time on any such matter.

3° Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government.

To be read in conjunction with article 13.9

9 The powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution shall be exercisable and performable by him only on the advice of the Government, save where it is provided by this Constitution that he shall act in his absolute discretion or after consultation with or in relation to the Council of State, or on the advice or nomination of, or on receipt of any other communication from, any other person or body.

There is no constitutional provision for the President to offer opinion, advice or pronouncement upon Govt policy or any aspect of International relations save under specific advice from Government.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407970#Comment_119407970

Constitutional law experts say it is just precedent not to comment on issues and not a strict rule.

David Kenny, associate professor of law at Trinity College Dublin, said while there is no strict constitutional rule that prohibits the president from commenting on issues, there was a long precedent whereby there would be a line between what a president would or would not say.

“What comes through that is a convention, because of the unique role the president has, and the role the president tries to occupy really above the politics of the Houses of the Oireachtas, it’s generally considered that the president wouldn’t weigh in on matters of active political controversy or be seen to criticise government policy and performance,” he said.

Mr Kenny said the functions of the president requires a “very significant degree of political independence in their exercise”, and they have generally refrained from that kind of comment.

President Higgins 'overstepped the mark' with housing disaster comments (irishexaminer.com)

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408008#Comment_119408008

I have great time for David Kenny and I'd actually agree with his comment when the matter is framed as an "issue" rather than as a policy intervention or indeed a critique of Govt of the days policy or performance.

The issue at hand in Sabina's letter however? Is far different than merely an opinion. If it had been just the letter published in the IT? As I said in a previous post, embarrassing but manageable. The publishing of that "opinion" on the president's website however? Places an entirely different frame on the letter itself. It frames it as at the very least being published by the Aras, and as such frames it as carrying the weight of Presidential pronouncement and an international relations disaster that Miggeldy and Mrs could have avoided by adhering to the constitutional norms lain out in Articles 12-14.

mazdamiatamx5

She’s clearly as stupid as her husband. Birds of a feather etc.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407970#Comment_119407970

Ok let's parse it.

1° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas by message or address on any matter of national or public importance.

2° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the Nation at any time on any such matter.

3° Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government.

Message to the Nation? It was a speech at a homeless shelter with a very small number of people. He does these speeches every other week and does not require government approval or consultation with the council of state. Are you suggesting he should only have discussed the nice weather?

He referenced housing in speeches in 2017 (Christmas message) and 2018 (Galway) and there was no "constitutional crisis". In 2017 he said it was "another festive season overshadowed by homelessness and “those deprived of a secure and permanent shelter”. "In Galway he called for "a wider debate about “all the constituent parts of our housing system” in that speech. Higgins has made plenty of speeches and comments around climate change. Is that allowed?

Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson often made scathing speeches on aspects of Irish society.

Dont take my word for it.

President Higgins 'overstepped the mark' with housing disaster comments (irishexaminer.com)

David Kenny, associate professor of law at Trinity College Dublin, said while there is no strict constitutional rule that prohibits the president from commenting on issues, there was a long precedent whereby there would be a line between what a president would or would not say.

Overstepped an invisible mark?