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,
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.
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.
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.
randylonghorn wrote: » Why?
oppenheimer1 wrote: » No, Mary Robinson was not our greatest president. I'd give that accolade to Patrick Hillary.
oppenheimer1 wrote: » INo, Mary Robinson was not our greatest president. I'd give that accolade to Patrick Hillary.
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.
Yamanoto wrote: » Disingenuous wording at work there methinks.
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.
Elmer Blooker wrote: » She supported the right wing nutjob DUP when she opposed the Anglo Irish agreement in the 80s.
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!
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.
suicide_circus wrote: » Why don't they like her?
dvpower wrote: » Did she do it for the money and the prestige?
