Robinson for European President

Not Peter, Mary!

A Facebook campaign has just been launched to make Mary Robinson the first post Lisbon President of the European Council.

After hugely successful terms of office in both the positions of President of Ireland and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, this group believes that Mary Robinson has proven that she would make an excellent President of the European Council.

  • Brit

    Apologist for suicide terrorism – no thanks.

  • Brits Out

    Robinson’s family were hardline Protestant Britiah imperialists. She should never have been President of Ireland. She used that post to land a bigger one in the New World Order. She now enjoys a huge pension from the Irish tax payer for usurping the office of President.
    Even her professorship at Trinity was a farce: she passed an exam and has limited legal knowledge (if we excuse the Irish Constitution.

    When she stood for a Labour TD seat, she was firmly rejected. Of coruse, she had her Trinity Colege Senate seat, paid for by the Irish tax payer to appease the most pampered minority in history – Irish Prods.

    I see she hangs around with Mandela now and offer advice as elder statespeople. Maggie May lives.

  • Belfast Greyhound

    She would be an inspired choice and would certainly cause the ‘Let’s have Tony Blair become a European demi-god campaign to come off the rails.
    After all Blair was the one who got us embroiled in a war that was totally unnecessary and into another that has no exit strategy and little chance of winning.

  • Brit

    Brits Out – nice sectarianism / borderline racism there (dont you see the Orange in the tricolour?). Right answer for the wrong reasons.

    My metaphorical “vote” goes to Blair. Though I supported both the wars referred to by Belfast Greyhound I’m not sure his support for humanitarian inverventionism would be massively relevant to this role.

  • fin

    Better the butcher of Iraq and Afganistan eh Brit,

  • loki

    Rather have Mary than Tony any day. At least Mrs Robinson has a few brain cells rather than just an overloaded ego.

  • I have to say lads you really do go out of your way to behave in a way which is unbecoming of these islands.

    Thankfully you are the few!

  • A

    Robinson’s family were hardline Protestant Britiah imperialists: wrong, she and all of her family were catholic.

    …has limited legal knowledge (if we excuse the Irish Constitution: Why excuse Irish constitutional law? She was one of the brightest barristers of her generation.

    When she stood for a Labour TD seat…: what has this to do with anything?

  • DC

    The only thing is that her experience and agenda isn’t aligned as is Blair’s to the problems actually confronting the EU, Britain and Ireland at this time. She isn’t as diplomatically atoned as Blair is and she’s made a muck up of her word choices at times in the past, and that’s being very very polite about it!

    Blair is involved in Inter-faith tolerance and global climate change. Robinson unfortunately would be out of her depth. I honestly can’t see anyone else but him who has the networks already in place to be used at a European leve.

    For a different gender perhaps Merkel will be next in line to take it on after Blair?

  • Driftwood

    Silvio Berlusconi and Boris Johnson should rotate the role. We need a European president like we need another fucking rainy summer.

  • exile

    [i]…wrong, she and all of her family were catholic.[/i]

    Wrong. Not that it makes any difference though.

  • Brit

    “the butcher of Iraq and Afganistan”

    I think you will find that the butchers were, respectively,:-

    Ba’athite remnants, Iraqi Shia sectarians and religious fundemantalists and their Iranian sponsors, Iraqi Sunni religious fundamentalists and sectarians and AQ affiliated foreign islamists. They were the ones doing the kidnapping, beheading, torture suicide bombings and generally butchery.

    Al Queda and the Taliban. Deliberate mass murder of civillians, suicide bombings, kidnapping, torture, execution for relgious “crimes”, throwing acid at women insufficiently covered up, whipping women for the crime of showing a bit of ankle, stoning women to death for pre-marital sex (even the Pope would baulk at that one), execution of apostates.

    Or perhaps it is only those with white skin that you think have agency and moral responsibility??

  • 6countyprod

    ‘hugely successful’ – what a joke!

  • Rory Carr

    It is not, Brit, that those of us who oppose the US and British led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan hold that “it is only those with white skin that you think have agency and moral responsibility??” but rather that these were the agencies that were acting in our name by invading the sovereign territory of people with whom we were not at war, had no reason to be at war with and who had not threatened our own security or viablity. Further in the execution of these invasions and continuing occupation they usurped the legitimate governments of those countries and imposed their own puppet authorities without allowing for free and fair elections and last but not least occasioned the death of hundreds of thousands directly, by proxy or as a direct consequence of the social mayhem that the invasions brought about.

    Besides which it is as citizens of the United Kingdom that we have a responsibility to call our own government to account when it acts against the interests of humanity in favour of the interests of oligarchial investment capital, we have no such responsibility towards the actions of the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan and are certainly unlikely to have any positive influence on any progressive forces there while British forces occupy and despoil their land and continue to kill their citizenry.

    Has it never occured to you that the excuses that you would give to justify the invasion of Iraq would have been sufficient excuse for any number of nations to invade the UK in order to effect “regime change” during Thatcher’s premiership or is always with you not so much a case of, “My country right or wrong” but rather, “My country always right”?

  • Turnpike

    The compromise candidate from a weak & peripheral EU country, you may as well just appoint the non-entity Barroso.

    Any EU Pres has to be able to speak on equal terms with US, China etc i.e. one of the big four Germany, France, UK or Italy.

  • Brit

    “It is not, Brit, that those of us who oppose the US and British led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan hold that “it is only those with white skin that you think have agency and moral responsibility??””
    Good that’s a start and an improvement over much of the kitsch anti-imperialisms

    B”ut rather that these were the agencies that were acting in our name by invading the sovereign territory of people with whom we were not at war, had no reason to be at war with and who had not threatened our own security or viablity”
    Sovereignty resides with the people not with the government. The Iraqi government did not represent the people and had no mandate (opposed as it was by the vast majority of the population, particularly within the 80% odd who were/are Kurds/Shias. We were not at war with the people but the regime. The people welcomed and supported the invasion. I can give you a number of reasons why we should have been at war with the Ba’athist regime – to do with the genocidal nature of the regime, the danger to the security of the middle east and the direct risks posed to world security and peace. As a progressive I do not believe that war should only be waged by a country whos security is directly threatened. If, for example, a state is failing so badly that mass starvation and a genocide will occur in the absence of military intervention then it is legitimate.

    “Further in the execution of these invasions and continuing occupation they usurped the legitimate governments of those countries and imposed their own puppet authorities”
    Legitimate governments. Are you taking the pi$$ ?
    “without allowing for free and fair elections”
    A lot freer and fairer than before but the export of democracy was never and could never be the primary justification or objective for either of those wars.
    “and last but not least occasioned the death of hundreds of thousands directly, by proxy or as a direct consequence of the social mayhem that the invasions brought about. ”
    I like “occasioned”. The “directly” deaths were caused by a just war which the Iraqis broadly welcomed (at least the non Baath, Christian or Sunni Iraqis). The others were a direct consequence of the desire of Shias to hit back (stirred up and supported by Iran), the Sunnis attempt to retain power and special status, Baathite attempts to settle scores particularly against the Kurds and Al Quedas attempt to kill innocent Shias and to discredit the west. Blaming the invasion is to fail to blame the perpetrators, and to fail to understand the basics of moral responsibility – and is like blaming the atrocities by Serbs and Croats on Gorbachev’s Perestroika.
    “Besides which it is as citizens of the United Kingdom that we have a responsibility to call our own government to account when it acts against the interests of humanity in favour of the interests of oligarchial investment capital, we have no such responsibility towards the actions of the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan and are certainly unlikely to have any positive influence on any progressive forces there while British forces occupy and despoil their land and continue to kill their citizenry.”
    What about the German and French oligachial investment capitalists, their interests seemed OK without their governments going to war? Humanity has a moral responsibility which does not stop at its borders, same with nation states and governments. There is, of course, a practical limit to what can be done but just to leave the worst tyrants to get on with it is immoral and illogical. Saddam’s Iraq in any event posed a threat to people other than Iraqis. British forces were/are “occupying” with the support of the government and people in order to protect its citizens.
    “Has it never occured to you that the excuses that you would give to justify the invasion of Iraq would have been sufficient excuse for any number of nations to invade the UK in order to effect “regime change” during Thatcher’s premiership or is always with you not so much a case of, “My country right or wrong” but rather, “My country always right”? ”
    No it hasn’t occuered to me. Probably because Thatcher didn’t murder hundreds of thousands of striking miners with chemical weapons, or try to annex the Republic of Ireland with a brutal invasion, or start a 10 year war with France, or create a huge and vicious totalitarian apparatus where any dissenters within or outside the Conservative party were likely to have their children tortured and murdered in front of thm.
    My country was wrong for most of its history but from WW2 onwards I have supported most British foreign policy and certainly the wars in the Falklands, Bakans, Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • michael

    “Any EU Pres has to be able to speak on equal terms with US, China etc i.e. one of the big four Germany, France, UK or Italy. ”

    So basically a persons nationality is more important when choosing an effective representative for the EU than, for example, their skill at negotiating?

    Is there a ranking within the big four as well?
    Has the rest of the world been informed of when and when not to take EU representatives seriously?

  • rob mcnaughton

    what about a europe wide referendum to pick the president?
    i would rather like henrik larsson as he played for celtic and seemed a nice chap. oh, and he did not start any wars.

  • “Any EU Pres has to be able to speak on equal terms with US, China etc i.e. one of the big four Germany, France, UK or Italy. “

    If that were so US Presidents could only ever come from California, New York or Texas. That would have been Clinton, Carter and Obama out!

  • barnshee

    11….wrong, she and all of her family were catholic.

    Wrong. Not that it makes any difference though.

    ER no wrong again (she married a prod)

    PS she was beautiful when younger- still attractive
    not that it makes any difference

  • Turnpike

    The reality is that a lightweight ala Robinson would be ignored, overlooked, undermined by the interests of the largest/richest/most powerful countries. If you wanted a token, ceremonial EU head then fair enough…

  • michael

    “The reality is that a lightweight ala Robinson would be ignored”

    Your extensive international negotiating experience tells you this?

    “Mr President, the EU are registering their displeasure”
    “Who exactly from the EU Jones?”
    “The president”
    “Ignore them till they take it seriously enough to get Silvio to call me!!”

  • Comrade Stalin

    Silvio Berlusconi and Boris Johnson should rotate the role.

    Jesus Christ, Driftwood. Johnson OK, but Berlusconi ? You really are completely out of your head.

    Robinson would be an excellent EU President, a far better candidate for the job than Bliar.

  • fin

    Wasn’t Robinson in line for the UN job, hardly lightweight,

    Brit, sad thing is most of the bad guys you mentioned were funded and supported by Britain and the US, you also seem to have an issue with people defending their country from invasion.

    Have you seen the online clip of Rumsfeld warmly shaking Saddams hand and saying now this is a man I can do business with, it was around about the time the US shot down the Iranian passenger liner and just before they were giving the co-ordinates of Kurdish villages for Saddam to shell,

    Are you saying the Brits have changed much in Afganistan, do you suppot the recent law making rape in marriage legal, Brit, take your head out of the sand son.

  • alan56

    No doubting Robinson’s statesmanship. Its just that the EU job will need someone who can horsetrade and cut deals, spin a bit and be all things to all people. Almost need some of the talents of a snake oil salesman…. Now who would that job suit?

  • Brit

    “Brit, sad thing is most of the bad guys you mentioned were funded and supported by Britain and the US, you also seem to have an issue with people defending their country from invasion.”

    I’m saying what I am saying, no more or less and I am certainly not saying that Iraq was not supported/supplied by Britain and/or the US (it was also supported supplied by France and the USSR and lots of other countries)

    “Have you seen the online clip of Rumsfeld warmly shaking Saddams hand and saying now this is a man I can do business with, it was around about the time the US shot down the Iranian passenger liner and just before they were giving the co-ordinates of Kurdish villages for Saddam to shell”

    I love it you even blame the West for Saddams crimes.

    “Are you saying the Brits have changed much in Afganistan, do you suppot the recent law making rape in marriage legal, Brit, take your head out of the sand son.”

    Quite a lot yes. But it is not a British or US colony and no doubt you would criticise the allies if the forced a liberal democratic government on Afghanistan.

  • Brit

    “also seem to have an issue with people defending their country from invasion”

    The overwhelming majority of the people welcomed the invasion and did not try to defend the hated Ba-athist regime, secret service, army or militias.

    The deaths I was referring to did not result from resisting the invasion or even trying to end the occupation they overwhelmingly resulted from the actions of the other forces with other objectives.

    Sometimes I would have an issue with people defending their country – ie the Wehrmacht defending Germany from invasion in 45.

  • fin

    “The overwhelming majority of the people welcomed the invasion and did not try to defend the hated Ba-athist regime, secret service, army or militias.”

    Jesus wept Brit, even the govt. dropped that line after a few days.

    Do you have any footage of the adoring crowds throwing flowers at the allied troops?

    “The deaths I was referring to did not result from resisting the invasion or even trying to end the occupation they overwhelmingly resulted from the actions of the other forces with other objectives.”

    ????????????????????????????????????

    As the Iraqi’s said when Saddam was captured “the servant returns to his master”

    And Brit you do seem to skirt around the fact that Saddam was supported for much of his career by the Brits and the Yanks or do you deny this?

  • Thereyouarenow

    If nobody else wants it I will give it a go.

    Even Peter Robinson would be better than Blair.

  • Dave

    17.“Any EU Pres has to be able to speak on equal terms with US, China etc i.e. one of the big four Germany, France, UK or Italy.” – Turnpike

    You haven’t quite grasped it, have you? The so-called “big four” no longer have a voice. They become regions of the EU, surrendering their rights as sovereign states to determine their own affairs that are thereafter determined by the EU. That is why the EU will be speaking on their behalf.

  • Slugger O’Toole Admin

    Some of you guys need to look at the commenting rules again. I don’t mind people having an odd poke, but come on.. stick the ball and not the man (or woman)…

  • Danny O’Connor

    I don’t know why we are speculating,it has probably been sorted out at the last Bilderberger meeting by Kissinger&co;

  • igor

    I am shocked and horrified that no-one has yet suggested Gerry for the job. Just look at his CV from his past career:

    * extensive experience of shuttle diplomacy
    * knows how to exert pressure in negotiations when needed
    * multi-lingual
    * excellent communication skills (outside Ireland)
    * persuasive (outside Ireland)
    * strong knowledge of European history (bits of)
    * specialised knowledge of economic policy options (party seems to have had at least 3 in last 5 years)

    Above all he’d be cheap as I am sure he could be persuaded to continue to live on the Average Industrial Wage unlike the other grafters and free loaders who might apply

  • Nothing like a little bit of TLC, Danny 😉

  • T.Ruth

    If Blair gets to be President of Europe then I will lose faith completely in the political process. Here is a man with a dangerous quality-he has delusions of adequacy.
    If this man and his dreadful wife are elected to swan about Europe and the world representing Europe it would be an unmitigated disaster.
    If this man is the best politician in Europe to represent us then there is major cause for concern. I shudder at the thought of it happeneing. Tony and Cherie-I get nauseous just thinking of them.Mary Robinson has many fine qualities and would certainly be accceptable to Unionists-Blair as Preesident of Eu would be anathema.
    Surely we should have a vote on the matter. Let those who are interested offer themselves for election and have a European referendum and election. Can any system on earth be less democratic than the EU.
    T.Ruth

  • Brit

    Fin, in response to your “????????????????????????????????????”, I repeat my earlier comments.

    “The “directly” deaths were caused by a just war which the Iraqis broadly welcomed (at least the non Baath, Christian or Sunni Iraqis). The others were a direct consequence of the desire of Shias to hit back (stirred up and supported by Iran), the Sunnis attempt to retain power and special status, Baathite attempts to settle scores particularly against the Kurds and Al Quedas attempt to kill innocent Shias and to discredit the west. Blaming the invasion is to fail to blame the perpetrators, and to fail to understand the basics of moral responsibility – and is like blaming the atrocities by Serbs and Croats on Gorbachev’s Perestroika.”

    “Jesus wept Brit, even the govt. dropped that line after a few days.” I dont deny the hostility to the ‘occupying’ forces in recent years but the initial invasion and overthrow of Saddam’s hated regime was welcomed by Kurds and Shias. Once they got out from under Saddams grip tthey , and particulary the Shias, wanted to run things and kick the foreign forces out (although early polls showed small support for immediate withdrawal).

    “And Brit you do seem to skirt around the fact that Saddam was supported for much of his career by the Brits and the Yanks or do you deny this? ”

    I didnt engage with the point in detail because it is largely irrelevant whataboutery. The logic of your position is that it is better for the USA/UK to have continued with their self-interested, ammoral realist foreign policy approach rather than move to something more enlightend because it is better to be consistent but bad than inconsitent and change for the better!

    But no I dont deny it. Of course there is “support” and “support” with varying levels of moral responsibility depending on the motivations, intentions, objectives and nature of the support given. The responsibility for the crimes of the Ba’athist totalitarian regime (crimes which whatever your views on the war are truly truly horrific) lies with the Baathist regime not with the Brits or Yanks. Furthermore lots of other regimes, like the French who strongly opposed the invasion, provided lots of support and weaponary to Saddam’s Iraq.

  • ZoonPol

    The presidency of the EU commission is a more powerful position than that of the EU Council institution. The former institution is the executive and legislative organ of the Union whereas the latter is merely a legislative organ representing the governments of the EU Member States which co-decide legislation with the EU Parliament.

    I never considered the former President of Ireland before as a contender for the Council role but she needs a supermajority of the EU Member State’s governments. She needs to get the support at least 2 or more of the following nations to stand a chance: France, Germany, Italy or UK. France (Sarkozy) admires Blair thus he is backing him and is persuading Germany (Merkel) to do the same. Blair used to holiday at Berlusconi villa so Italy shall most likely back him too. New Labour will go with their former leader so naturally the UK shall vote for their man. In other words it’s a shoe in for Blair to become the first President of the European Council subject to the provisional Article 15 para 5 of the Treaties of the Union [Article 1 para 16 ToL).

    As Brown is an unpopular PM its likely that the General Election will be held at the 12th hour thus allowing plenty of time for all EU Member States to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Seems probable that Prime Minister Cameron will be working with President Blair soon 🙂

  • ZoonPol

    Apoligies mixed up European Council and Council..

    The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development
    and shall define the general political directions and priorities thereof. It shall not exercise legislative
    functions.

    Gosh Robinson and Blair – potentially the new post holder will make the role powerful or not; for better or worse. In theory i would go for Robinson but in practice may go to Blair.

  • Greenflag

    ‘Seems probable that Prime Minister Cameron will be working with President Blair soon 🙂

    Did’nt you mean FOR President Blair ?

    I’m surprised none of the Unionists or Tories on slugger have suggested Chris Patten the last British Governor of Hong Kong?

  • *evil laugh” She’s your president now!!! 🙂

  • Brits Out

    Brit

    Even Kofi Anan, the former UN puppet, admitted the invasion of Iraq was a crime against the peace. The fact that the puppet court in the Hague (of all places, think slavery, mass rapes of Indonesian Muslims) “chooses” not to try British and American war criminals (the Yanks refuse to be bound by it but insist others are), does not change the fact that the Coalition of the Willing aka USA and her lackeys committed many war crimes there.

    Your arguments are akin to those of the Germans who point to Hitler’s good points and forget the dead. I assume you are a BNP man. If not, you probably should be as, like most Brit bull dog imperialists, it is your spiritual home.

  • tkbytesback

    No way, they are looking a President, not a Queen. Having someone who finishes the term would be a good idea too.

  • Secret Squirrel

    Apologies if everyone’s seen this drama already.
    The Trial of Tony Blair
    Loads more Channel 4 stuff

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘Better the butcher of Iraq and Afganistan eh Brit,’

    Lol Fin.

    ‘Sovereignty resides with the people not with the government.’

    Funny Brit, but I recall you suggesting the palestinians had no sovereignty over their land precisely because there was no govt structure pre-1948. It seems you do after all, tailor your principles to suit your particular argument. So we won’t here such nonsense from you again eh 😉

    Can’t wait for your long-winded pedantic response.

  • Guest

    Rs,
    never thought i’d say it but fantastic to hear your logic.The lad is praying,may his god love him………

  • Danny O’Connor

    TK
    If they made the noble lord Mandelson president,they would have a president and a queen.

  • Joe

    “Lightweight?” Here’s her CV:

    Appointed Reid Professor of Criminal Law in Trinity College Dublin when she was 25 years of age. Founded the Irish Centre for European Law in 1988.

    Member of Seanad Éireann 1969 -89 and member of Dublin City Council 1979 – 83.

    1990, elected President of Ireland. While President became the first Irish president to meet Queen Elizabeth II, met the Pope and the Dalai Lama, also visited Rwanda and many other countries. By half way through her term of office her popularity rating reached an unheard of 93%.

    In 1998 she became the first UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Tibet. She criticised the Irish system of permits for non-EU immigrants as similar to “bonded labour” and criticised the United States’ use of capital punishment. Presided over the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, as Secretary-General. Robinson’s posting as High Commissioner ended in 2002, after sustained pressure from the United States led her to declare she was no longer able to continue her work. Robinson had criticised the US for violating human rights in its war on terrorism.

    Robinson has been Honorary President of Oxfam International since 2002, she is Chair of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and is also a founding member and Chair until March 2009 of the Council of Women World Leaders. She is also Vice-President of the Club of Madrid, the world’s largest forum of former Presidents and Prime Ministers.

    She serves on many boards including as chair of the GAVI Alliance. Robinson’s newest project is Realizing Rights: the Ethical Globalization Initiative, which fosters equitable trade and decent work, promotes the right to health and more humane migration policies, works to strengthen women’s leadership and encourage corporate responsibility.

    In 2004, she received Amnesty International’s Ambassador of Conscience Award for her work in promoting human rights.

    In 2007, Nelson Mandela, Graça Machel, and Desmond Tutu convened a group of world leaders, including Mary Robinson, to contribute their wisdom, independent leadership and integrity to tackle some of the world’s toughest problems. Nelson Mandela announced the formation of this new group, The Elders, in a speech he delivered on the occasion of his 89th birthday.

    Robinson is the twenty fourth, and first female, Chancellor of University of Dublin (Trinity College).
    In 1997 she was one of the two winners of the North-South Prize.
    In 2002 she was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize for her outstanding work as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and in 2003 the prestigious Otto Hahn Peace Medal in Gold of the United Nations Association of Germany in Berlin.
    In May 2005 she was awarded the first “Outspoken” award from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC).
    In October 2006 she was awarded the Social Science Principes de Asturias Prize.
    In January 2009, Robinson was appointed as head of the International Commission of Jurists.
    In September 2009, she was awarded the 2009 Inamori Ethics Prize by Case Western Reserve University In the same month, she was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws from the University of Bath.
    In July 2009, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour awarded by the United States presented to her by President Barack Obama.

    So pretty lightweight then…

  • Reader

    What is the point of this discussion? It’s not as though any of us has any say in selecting the President anyway.

  • Secret Squirrel

    At least the apologist for the murderous british army has gone back under its stone. :o)