John Bruton: A career assessment

conorhal · 10-05-2010 11:13am #1

I was arguing with a mate that Bruton's career as a politician was, by and large, a mediocre affair and that his tenure as Taoiseach could have been described as uneventful had the IRA ceasefire not collapsed while he was in power.

So, was 'Union John' a braying donkey that lacked the political guile necessary to manage the peace negociations in NI and his own Dail, where he took a back seat to Labor and the rest of the rainbow government, or was he a bright and shinging light in Irish politics and one of the few good Taoiseach of the last 20 years as my mate maintains?

syklops · 10-05-2010 11:18am

conorhal wrote: »

I was arguing with a mate that Bruton's career as a politician was, by and large, a mediocre affair and that his tenure as thesiogh could have been described as uneventful had the IRA ceasefire not collapsed while he was thesiogh.

So, was 'Union John' a braying donkey that lacked the political guile necessary to manage the peace negociations in NI and his own dail, where he took a back seat to Labor and the rest of the rainbow government or was he a bright and shinging light in Irish politics and one of the few good thesiogh of the last 20 years as ny mate maintains?

Whats a thesiogh? Do you mean Taoiseach? Or Thespian?

conorhal · 10-05-2010 11:37am

syklops wrote: »

Whats a thesiogh? Do you mean Taoiseach? Or Thespian?

Or Middle aged lesbian even. Spelling corrected.

aDeener · 10-05-2010 12:23pm

VAT on childrens shoes = fail

Sergeant · 10-05-2010 2:57pm

aDeener wrote: »

VAT on childrens shoes = fail

As opposed to NAMA, the housing bubble, and the proliferation of quangos under the present administration?

I believe Bruton was one of the better modern Taoisigh in the modern era.

Under the rainbow coalition, the economy grew on average by 8.7% per year, the country was competitive, inward investment increased massively, and we were yet to see an economy built around selling over-priced houses to one another.

The 24th government was also responsible for increases in investment in education, cutting the national debt, and the establishment of the CAB.

aDeener · 10-05-2010 4:40pm

Sergeant wrote: »

As opposed to NAMA, the housing bubble, and the proliferation of quangos under the present administration?

I believe Bruton was one of the better modern Taoisigh in the modern era.

Under the rainbow coalition, the economy grew on average by 8.7% per year, the country was competitive, inward investment increased massively, and we were yet to see an economy built around selling over-priced houses to one another.

The 24th government was also responsible for increases in investment in education, cutting the national debt, and the establishment of the CAB.

he was no angel though.....

Rebelheart · 10-05-2010 4:56pm

He was always good to the big farmers in Meath. No doubt about that. A reactionary little sycophant by any objective standards. The words 'pig', 'grunt' and 'expect' come to mind when I think of his politics.

Just in case any of you forget: Bruton was the guy who, in June 1995, stood up in front of Charles Saxe-Coburg-Gotha alias Windsor and said that it was the greatest moment of his life to be able to entertain mo dhuine for dinner (at our expense). Pass the bucket.

As the representative of the Irish people that night he embodied everything that makes Fine Gael repellent and untrustworthy. Like, really, how many Irish people have any of you met who would even think like that?

Brian Hayes, a loyal friend whom Bruton first promoted in the party, is the new John Unionist, a protégé if ever there were one. A horrendous little man with little views from the comfort of his little Blueshirt world. Imagine him being responsible for deprived schools or the like. Hayes is the best reason of all not to vote for the Blueshirts in the next election.

trapsagenius · 10-05-2010 5:21pm

With regards Bruton he completely destroyed the good work laid down by Reynolds and Spring in the Peace Process (or the "fvcking peace process" as he called it).His incessant panderings to the unionists were, quite frankly, repulsive.It's no wonder he got the "Johnny unionist" nickname.It was on his watch that the ceasefire broke down with the Canary Wharf bombing.So he deserves a lot of the blame for this.

On the economic front, he did quite well, but in reality he was only continuing the good work previously laid down by Haughey (yes, Haughey), and more importantly FF and Labour led by Reynolds.I think I'm correct in saying that the term "celtic tiger" was first coined under the Reynolds-led administration.However maybe this (i.e not fvcking up the economy), was more of an achievement than we give him credit for, given what has happened the last few years.

On the whole, I would say as Taoiseach-probably slightly more harm than good, because the breakdown in NI lead to people's deaths-surely more important than any economic successes he had.On balance though, certainly not one of our worst leaders.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Just in case any of you forget: Bruton was the guy who, in June 1995, stood up in front of Charles Saxe-Coburg-Gotha alias Windsor and said that it was the greatest moment of his life to be able to entertain mo dhuine for dinner (at our expense). Pass the bucket.

+1 to that!The bloody problem with him was that he never represented the views of Ireland-he simply represented himself.While obviously he was entitled to say that it was the greatest moment of his life(even though I can't believe it was), it would probably have been more politically prudent not to make such a sweeping statement.

FlutterinBantam · 10-05-2010 7:48pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

He was always good to the big farmers in Meath. No doubt about that. A reactionary little sycophant by any objective standards. The words 'pig', 'grunt' and 'expect' come to mind when I think of his politics.

Just in case any of you forget: Bruton was the guy who, in June 1995, stood up in front of Charles Saxe-Coburg-Gotha alias Windsor and said that it was the greatest moment of his life to be able to entertain mo dhuine for dinner (at our expense). Pass the bucket.

As the representative of the Irish people that night he embodied everything that makes Fine Gael repellent and untrustworthy. Like, really, how many Irish people have any of you met who would even think like that?

Brian Hayes, a loyal friend whom Bruton first promoted in the party, is the new John Unionist, a protégé if ever there were one. A horrendous little man with little views from the comfort of his little Blueshirt world. Imagine him being responsible for deprived schools or the like. Hayes is the best reason of all not to vote for the Blueshirts in the next election.

Were you born bitter and twisted or did it just happen naturally??

Liam Byrne · 10-05-2010 8:36pm

aDeener wrote: »

he was no angel though.....

Doesn't seem to be a requirement for the job, TBH.....

Anyways, considering some of the more obviously-corrupt individuals who have filled that position recently (Haughey & Ahern) maybe you'd care to enlighten us on some facts that led you to the above conclusion, so that we can compare like with like ?

FTA69 · 10-05-2010 9:42pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

Just in case any of you forget: Bruton was the guy who, in June 1995, stood up in front of Charles Saxe-Coburg-Gotha alias Windsor and said that it was the greatest moment of his life to be able to entertain mo dhuine for dinner (at our expense). Pass the bucket.

As the representative of the Irish people that night he embodied everything that makes Fine Gael repellent and untrustworthy. Like, really, how many Irish people have any of you met who would even think like that?

Yep, Charles Windsor the honourary commander of the Paratroop Regiment responsible for Bloody Sunday. In fairness to Bruton though, he wasn't the only Irish person of "importance" to fawn over that f*cking eejit.

oppenheimer1 · 10-05-2010 9:47pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be a requirement for the job, TBH.....

Anyways, considering some of the more obviously-corrupt individuals who have filled that position recently (Haughey, Ahern & Cowen) maybe you'd care to enlighten us on some facts that led you to the above conclusion, so that we can compare like with like ?

Cowen corrupt? Have you anything to back up that allegation? If you don't you should retract it immediately.

aDeener · 10-05-2010 11:20pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be a requirement for the job, TBH.....

Anyways, considering some of the more obviously-corrupt individuals who have filled that position recently (Haughey, Ahern & Cowen) maybe you'd care to enlighten us on some facts that led you to the above conclusion, so that we can compare like with like ?

it doesn't seem to be a requirement to be a member of FG either.... allegedly.

cowen "obviously corrupt"? people have got in trouble for much less than coming out with such an outrageous statement.

nesf · 10-05-2010 11:32pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Were you born bitter and twisted or did it just happen naturally??

Less of the personal crap slinging please.

hotmail.com · 10-05-2010 11:33pm

He wasn't that bad, let's be honest, his short time in office means that his legacy is somewhat shorter than other taoisigh that served for longer periods of time. Nevertheless, there was some major events during his term:

Divorce referendum
CAB was set up
Progress in Northern Ireland
Improving economy

FG also increased their participation in the Dail in the 1997 election which was another achievement.

The Prince Charles sycophant moment was a bit bizarre.

Liam Byrne · 10-05-2010 11:47pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Cowen corrupt? Have you anything to back up that allegation? If you don't you should retract it immediately.

Mea culpa.....there is an alternate possibility : you can take your pick between (a) working toward the benefit of vested interests or (b) hopelessly incompetent.....I'll remind you that he was Minister for Finance while the whole current disaster was being created.

He has also been - somewhat justifiably - described as being an economic traitor.

I will however, retract the word itself, since there are a number of possible interpretations, and there is no indication that he is as deserving of the straightforward description as Ahern or Haughey.

To clarify, I would view the entire FF Government as corrupt to the core at this stage, bailing out banks and voting confidence in dodgy individuals, and that is essentially what I meant.

But yes, the "obviously corrupt" phrase is less straightfowardly appropriate in Cowen's case, and I have edited the post accordingly.

oppenheimer1 · 10-05-2010 11:50pm

aDeener wrote: »

it doesn't seem to be a requirement to be a member of FG either.... allegedly.

cowen "obviously corrupt"? people have got in trouble for much less than coming out with such an outrageous statement.

Let the man have his reply. He obviously has evidence to back up his libelous claim. Otherwise of course you wouldn't make such a claim, now would you Liam? :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne · 11-05-2010 12:02am

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Let the man have his reply. He obviously has evidence to back up his libelous claim. Otherwise of course you wouldn't make such a claim, now would you Liam? :rolleyes:

Can I remind you that I was initially replying to aDeener's claim that Bruton was "no angel" (which he strangely replied to by simply repeating the claim).

Odd that you didn't ask him to justify / back up that claim.......

Anyway, I've clarified my point above, and apologies if the word combined with other names mentioned appeared to imply more of a guilt-by-association than intended.

oppenheimer1 · 11-05-2010 12:02am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Mea culpa.....there is an alternate possibility : you can take your pick between (a) working toward the benefit of vested interests or (b) hopelessly incompetent.....I'll remind you that he was Minister for Finance while the whole current disaster was being created.

He has also been - somewhat justifiably - described as being an economic traitor.

I will however, retract the word itself, since there are a number of possible interpretations, and there is no indication that he is as deserving of the straightforward description as Ahern or Haughey.

To clarify, I would view the entire FF Government as corrupt to the core at this stage, bailing out banks and voting confidence in dodgy individuals, and that is essentially what I meant.

But yes, the "obviously corrupt" phrase is less straightfowardly appropriate in Cowen's case, and I have edited the post accordingly.

You obviously don't know what corruption is, legislating for private gain. Can you provide evidence of any instance where a member of the current Cabinet has been shown to be corrupt?

Liam Byrne · 11-05-2010 12:05am

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You obviously don't know what corruption is, legislating for private gain.

That is just one of 4 possible definitions, and to be fair, is why my original post admittedly required clarification.

1 willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
2 evil or morally depraved
3 (of a text or computer data) made unreliable by errors or alterations.
4 rotten or putrid

I can certainly think of a number of areas where 2 & 4 apply.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/corrupt?view=uk

At no stage was I suggesting or implying that Cowen was engaged in the first definition.

oppenheimer1 · 11-05-2010 12:14am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can I remind you that I was initially replying to aDeener's claim that Bruton was "no angel" (which he strangely replied to by simply repeating the claim).

Odd that you didn't ask him to justify / back up that claim.......

Anyway, I've clarified my point above, and apologies if the word combined with other names mentioned appeared to imply more of a guilt-by-association than intended.

Given the language used I assume aDeener is referring to Frank Dunlops quote of Bruton "There are no angels in the world or in Fine Gael" in relation to Lowry. Bruton originally claimed that conversation never took place, but then later it "suddenly came back to him"... hmm.

Liam Byrne · 11-05-2010 12:19am

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Given the language used I assume aDeener is referring to Frank Dunlops quote of Bruton "There are no angels in the world or in Fine Gael" in relation to Lowry.

The Frank Dunlop that was Fianna Fáil Government Press Secretary ?

And who apparently "....told The Mahon Tribunal, in June 2006, that he kept a stash of cash to bribe county councillors on a regular basis in the 18 property development transactions he was involved with as a public relations consultant" ?

Forgive me if I don't take view his opinion on ethics or character references as any way credible.

oppenheimer1 · 11-05-2010 12:20am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The Frank Dunlop that was Fianna Fáil Government Press Secretary ?

And who apparently "....told The Mahon Tribunal, in June 2006, that he kept a stash of cash to bribe county councillors on a regular basis in the 18 property development transactions he was involved with as a public relations consultant" ?

Forgive me if I don't take view his opinion on ethics or character references as any way credible.

There are no angels in the world.

But this thread isn't about Dunlop, its about Bruton.

The more positive legacy of Brutons Rainbow was the abolition of 3rd level fees and the setting up of CAB

Liam Byrne · 11-05-2010 1:46am

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But this thread isn't about Dunlop, its about Bruton.

Indeed.

But then I wasn't the one who tried to use a quote from the disgraced Dunlop to imply that Bruton was iffy.

FTA69 · 11-05-2010 12:23pm

You obviously don't know what corruption is, legislating for private gain. Can you provide evidence of any instance where a member of the current Cabinet has been shown to be corrupt?

Not necessarily. As Liam has pointed out corruption has a far wider meaning than the narrow definition you gave. For instance one could assert that John O'Donoghue using his office to live the high-life at tax-payers' expense could be construed as corruption.

Liam Byrne · 11-05-2010 2:57pm

FTA69 wrote: »

Not necessarily. As Liam has pointed out corruption has a far wider meaning than the narrow definition you gave. For instance one could assert that John O'Donoghue using his office to live the high-life at tax-payers' expense could be construed as corruption.

At least the "which definition do you mean" objection was only raised in relation to Cowen, which makes a welcome change.....reality must be setting in re Ahern.

oppenheimer1 · 11-05-2010 3:31pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

At least the "which definition do you mean" objection was only raised in relation to Cowen, which makes a welcome change.....reality must be setting in re Ahern.

Two of them are subject to investigation by the Mahon Tribunal. I will wait for the report before making a judgement. I called you up on Cowen because as far as I know he has never been involved in any impropriety.

I acknowledge your further clarification regarding your definition of "corruption" and whilst I don't agree with you, you are entitled to the opinion.

That said, can we get back to Bruton?

aDeener · 11-05-2010 11:14pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That is just one of 4 possible definitions, and to be fair, is why my original post admittedly required clarification.

I can certainly think of a number of areas where 2 & 4 apply.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/corrupt?view=uk

At no stage was I suggesting or implying that Cowen was engaged in the first definition.

how on earth could you claim cowen to be evil, putrid, rotten or morally depraved??!! what ever about the other two, but cowen?

Liam Byrne · 11-05-2010 11:30pm

aDeener wrote: »

how on earth could you claim cowen to be evil, putrid, rotten or morally depraved??!! what ever about the other two, but cowen?

Ignoring the boom and not managing the economy in order to assist greedy vested interests was evil (regardless of the fact that it wasn't for personal gain) - he was Minister for Finance
Getting paid a fortune by us to do the above management job and failing to do it is both morally depraved and rotten
Preventing the by-elections is rotten, and the fact that it's to cling onto power is morally questionable
Voting confidence in scheisters like O'Dea and O'Donoghue and Ahern in order to maintain power is putrid
NAMA & the bailouts are morally depraved

Next question......

Einhard · 12-05-2010 12:05am

trapsagenius wrote: »

His incessant panderings to the unionists were, quite frankly, repulsive.It's no wonder he got the "Johnny unionist" nickname.It was on his watch that the ceasefire broke down with the Canary Wharf bombing.So he deserves a lot of the blame for this.

Are you for real? The IRA plants a bomb that murders two innocent people and causes huge destruction, and you're blaming John Bruton?? Jesus Christ, that's revisionism of the highest order!!

And anyway, surely the leader of a supposedly mature democracy can pronounce himself honoured to be hosting a dinner for the visiting representative of another state? If he had personally poisoned Charles' dinner with a dash of hemlock, some people would still be criticising him here for granting him too painless a death!

Bruton was essentially a safe pair of hands, and considering the mess that's been made of the economy over the past few years, it's a pity there aren't more politicians like him.

trapsagenius · 12-05-2010 5:13pm

Einhard wrote: »

Are you for real? The IRA plants a bomb that murders two innocent people and causes huge destruction, and you're blaming John Bruton?? Jesus Christ, that's revisionism of the highest order!!

Don't call me revisionist.I am most certainly not one.I blame Bruton for placing the IRA in a situation where they felt their interests were best served by a return to violence.Obviously the IRA deserve the lion's share of the blame, but Bruton did not help matters at all.

Einhard wrote: »

And anyway, surely the leader of a supposedly mature democracy can pronounce himself honoured to be hosting a dinner for the visiting representative of another state?

Re-read my previous post.I said he can feel whatever way he likes but it would have been more politically prudent not to have said that.What damage did a comment like that do in terms of Bruton trying to win the support and trust of the republicans in NI?Quite a bit, I'll wager.

Einhard wrote: »

Bruton was essentially a safe pair of hands, and considering the mess that's been made of the economy over the past few years, it's a pity there aren't more politicians like him.

Agree with the bones of this.

Liam Byrne · 12-05-2010 5:31pm

trapsagenius wrote: »

Don't call me revisionist.I am most certainly not one.I blame Bruton for placing the IRA in a situation where they felt their interests were best served by a return to violence.Obviously the IRA deserve the lion's share of the blame, but Bruton did not help matters at all.

His job was never to represent or appease terrorists, and would you expect him to roll over if the IRA's "interests" were best served by involved robbing banks, too ?

I'd much prefer Bruton's approach than that of Haughey's.

trapsagenius · 12-05-2010 5:43pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

His job was never to represent or appease terrorists, and would you expect him to roll over if the IRA's "interests" were best served by involved robbing banks, too ?

I'd much prefer Bruton's approach than that of Haughey's.

Well obviously his job was not to appease terrorists, but he showed an extreme lack of tact.The conventional way of dealing with the IRA, by refusing to negotiate or bring them on board in the peace process had not worked since the start of the Troubles.Note the failures of Sunningdale and the Anglo Irish Agreement.Why he returned to these tough talking methods after their proven failures is beyond me.It would have been far better if he had even given the illusion of listening, even a small bit, to the IRA.While it may have been grating to deal with the IRA in such a manner, it was the only way which worked.By contrast, note the successes of Reynolds and Bertie's approaches, who brought the IRA on board, left out the tough talking, but didn't pander to them either.Sometimes such actions are necessary for peace no matter how queasy you might feel in doing them.This was something Bruton failed to grasp.

Einhard · 12-05-2010 7:29pm

trapsagenius wrote: »

Don't call me revisionist.I am most certainly not one.I blame Bruton for placing the IRA in a situation where they felt their interests were best served by a return to violence.Obviously the IRA deserve the lion's share of the blame, but Bruton did not help matters at all.

I blame the IRA for deciding that the murder of innocent civilians was ever in their interests. Anything else is revisionism.

Re-read my previous post.I said he can feel whatever way he likes but it would have been more politically prudent not to have said that.What damage did a comment like that do in terms of Bruton trying to win the support and trust of the republicans in NI?Quite a bit, I'll wager.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how allowing an illegal terrorist organisation which had shown itself to have few qualms about murdering civilians, which refused to recognise the Irish state, and which had effectively declared war on that state, to influence and direct our foreign policy would have been prudent. What you're arguing amounts, in effect, to the abdication of sovereign power to a group of unrepresentative, murderous thugs. That's anything but politically prudent.

trapsagenius · 12-05-2010 9:19pm

Einhard wrote: »

I blame the IRA for deciding that the murder of innocent civilians was ever in their interests. Anything else is revisionism.

Let me clarify then-you absolve Bruton of any blame over the breaking down of the peace process?

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how allowing an illegal terrorist organisation which had shown itself to have few qualms about murdering civilians, which refused to recognise the Irish state, and which had effectively declared war on that state, to influence and direct our foreign policy would have been prudent. What you're arguing amounts, in effect, to the abdication of sovereign power to a group of unrepresentative, murderous thugs. That's anything but politically prudent.

You know perfectly well that is not what I'm arguing.Please don't misrepresent me.What I am actually arguing is that there is a time and a place for everything.What Bruton said could be politely described as foolish-it could also be impolitely described as downright idiotic.See my previous post with how I think a better way of dealing with the Republicans would have been.How could Bruton possibly have expected to win the trust of Republicans after making a comment like that(whatever his personal feelings)? Sometimes it is necessary to avoid cracking any unnecessary egg-shells, and to show a bit of realism on what damage a comment like that could do.

2 questions:
1.Do you think what Bruton did that night was tactful?
2.Do you think Bruton did a good job on the peace process?

If the answer to either of those 2 questions is yes, I would advise you to "get real".....

Einhard · 12-05-2010 9:37pm

I don't know enough about Bruton's policies re the peace process to have an informed opinion on whether he could have handled it better. Going by the comments here though, I suspect that he could have approached it in a different way but, unlike Hume, didn't have the stomach to deal with IRA/Sinn Fein. If this were the case (and I'm unsure if it was), then it is both understandable and also open to legitimate criticism. What I can't countenance though, is the idea that he should have pandered to murderers for the sake of politics, and that is exactly what is being suggested when the dinner with Prince Charles is raised.

Rebelheart · 12-05-2010 11:18pm

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know enough about Bruton's policies re the peace process to have an informed opinion on whether he could have handled it better. Going by the comments here though, I suspect that he could have approached it in a different way but, unlike Hume, didn't have the stomach to deal with IRA/Sinn Fein. If this were the case (and I'm unsure if it was), then it is both understandable and also open to legitimate criticism. What I can't countenance though, is the idea that he should have pandered to murderers for the sake of politics, and that is exactly what is being suggested when the dinner with Prince Charles is raised.

It's neither understandable nor acceptable for the leader of a sovereign Irish government to allow his emotions and bitterness (over Billy Fox's death especially) interfere with the advancement of both this state and Ireland.

If the views of John Bruton (and the Sunday Independent) had been allowed to prevail in the 1990s there would have been no peace process, no ceasefire and many more lives lost. And all because Mr Bruton had the emotional maturity of a petulant child. He was nothing other than a coward who allowed his emotional immaturity to triumph over the wise, rational and prescient decision-making of politicians such as John Hume. No courage at all, no judgement and no regard for the future; no ability and no readiness to use government policy to facilitate that future. He offered us the past, or worse still, his twisted version of that past. Small man.

Bruton and his ilk have nothing to offer Ireland. They are the past. In case anybody is naive enough to think Bruton is enlightened, this is the man whose political hero (aside from Charles Windsor) is no less than John Redmond, he who called for tens of thousands of Irishmen to fight and die for the British Empire. So much for Bruton having any moral consistency on the use of violence to achieve a political aim.

John Gerard Bruton is an utterly inappropriate representative of a sovereign Irish state.

Rebelheart · 12-05-2010 11:20pm

Einhard wrote: »

... didn't have the stomach to deal with IRA/Sinn Fein ....

I'd say your own politics aren't too far off Bruton's if you're to be honest about it.

Liam Byrne · 12-05-2010 11:20pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

there would have been no peace process, no ceasefire and many more lives lost. And all because......

......the IRA chose to kill more people.

John Bruton being "petulant" would not have killed anyone.

Rebelheart · 12-05-2010 11:27pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

......the IRA chose to kill more people.

Wrong, plainly wrong. Get your facts straight. The IRA was on ceasefire when Bruton arrived in office. When Bruton was in office love-bombing everybody from Charles Windsor to the Tory party (which depended upon UUP votes to stay in power and was consequently refusing to engage with the process), they very understandably came off it. You make peace with your enemies, not your friends. Bruton, in his maturity, did the direct opposite.
The IRA went back on ceasefire when a more emotionally mature and rational Irish government came to power.

Liam Byrne · 12-05-2010 11:37pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

Wrong, plainly wrong. Get your facts straight.

I meant if the IRA had chosen to kill more people.....in the same way that you said If the views of John Bruton had been allowed to prevail in the 1990s

So right, right, plainly right.......if more people had been killed, it wouldn't have been Bruton doing the killing, therefore it wouldn't have been his fault.

Rebelheart wrote: »

The IRA went back on ceasefire when a more emotionally mature and rational Irish government came to power.

That's big of them.....stopping doing stuff they should never have been doing in the first place. :rolleyes:

Rebelheart · 12-05-2010 11:56pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I meant if the IRA had chosen to kill more people.....in the same way that you said If the views of John Bruton had been allowed to prevail in the 1990s

So right, right, plainly right.......if more people had been killed, it wouldn't have been Bruton doing the killing, therefore it wouldn't have been his fault.

That's big of them.....stopping doing stuff they should never have been doing in the first place. :rolleyes:

Calm down, it's only a message board (you're not John Bruton per chance?).

Your analogy is specious because the IRA had chosen to stop killing but Bruton refused to move his politics with that decision. Most Irish politicians had moved with the IRA decision, changed their positions and started to accommodate the new situation. John Bruton was the exception within mainstream politics (if one excludes ex-Stickies like de Rossa). Bruton went backwards and danced to the tune of the Tory Party which had the noble motivation - mar dhea - of appeasing the UUP/going against nationalists in order to keep their Westminster votes/ stay in power.

Bruton's inability to stand up for any sort of fair play in the north of Ireland given that partisan political reality made him unfit for office. He, in alliance with the Tory and UUP parties, destroyed the first Peace Process long before 10 February 1996. That is the reality which you are either oblivious to or in denial of. But somehow you expected the nationalist community to stay on their knees and not react. :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne · 13-05-2010 12:02am

Rebelheart wrote: »

But somehow you expected the nationalist community to stay on their knees and not react. :rolleyes:

Where did I say that ?

Of course they're entitled to "react", so don't put words in my mouth.

I just expected them (or more specifically, the subset of them) not to bomb and murder anyone.

Hardly much to ask, in all fairness.

Einhard · 13-05-2010 12:46am

Rebelheart wrote: »

I'd say your own politics aren't too far off Bruton's if you're to be honest about it.

Am I wrong in thinking that Sinn Fein were the political wing of the IRA?

To be equally honest, if I were prone to jump to rash judgements of people purely on the basis of them not agreeing with me, I might allege that you are a fellow traveller with murderous thugs who target innocent lives to further their own agenda. Thankfully I'm not, so I won't.

Einhard · 13-05-2010 12:55am

Rebelheart wrote: »

Wrong, plainly wrong. Get your facts straight. The IRA was on ceasefire when Bruton arrived in office. When Bruton was in office love-bombing everybody from Charles Windsor to the Tory party (which depended upon UUP votes to stay in power and was consequently refusing to engage with the process), they very understandably came off it.

Ah, so the IRA react to "love-bombing" by actual bombing. The actual bombing of innocent people no less. And we should blame John Bruton for that?

You make peace with your enemies, not your friends. Bruton, in his maturity, did the direct opposite.
The IRA went back on ceasefire when a more emotionally mature and rational Irish government came to power

Jesus, you make this sound like a game. The IRA decided to murder innocent people because John Bruton wasn't pliant enoug for their liking. When they went back on ceasefire, what you mean to say is that they decided not to murder anymore innocent civilians (well, apart from the odd "unauthorised killing). I don't know about you, but I don't think we should be showering plaudits on people pruely because they stopped murdering people!

Seriously, this is the kind of attitude that prevents me from calling myself a Republican, even though I favour a 32 county republic. One might have grounds to criticise Bruton for his lack of engagement with all the parties, but to seek to implicate him in the murder of innocents, and mitigate the role of those murderous thugs who actually planted the devices, is outrageous.

And if Charles Windsor, or his mother, arrived in Ireland tomorrow, I for one would welcome them. That's what happens in mature democracies. Pity those who make such claims for a united Ireland fail to understand that.

anymore · 14-05-2010 11:48pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Mea culpa.....there is an alternate possibility : you can take your pick between (a) working toward the benefit of vested interests or (b) hopelessly incompetent.....I'll remind you that he was Minister for Finance while the whole current disaster was being created.

He has also been - somewhat justifiably - described as being an economic traitor.

I will however, retract the word itself, since there are a number of possible interpretations, and there is no indication that he is as deserving of the straightforward description as Ahern or Haughey.

To clarify, I would view the entire FF Government as corrupt to the core at this stage, bailing out banks and voting confidence in dodgy individuals, and that is essentially what I meant.

But yes, the "obviously corrupt" phrase is less straightfowardly appropriate in Cowen's case, and I have edited the post accordingly.

He has explained in a speech to a Dublin Chamber of Commenrce that it wasnt actulaly his fault at all so we have obivously been unfair to him :mad:

oppenheimer1 · 15-05-2010 12:44am

Rebelheart wrote: »

Wrong, plainly wrong. Get your facts straight. The IRA was on ceasefire when Bruton arrived in office. When Bruton was in office love-bombing everybody from Charles Windsor to the Tory party (which depended upon UUP votes to stay in power and was consequently refusing to engage with the process), they very understandably came off it. You make peace with your enemies, not your friends. Bruton, in his maturity, did the direct opposite.
The IRA went back on ceasefire when a more emotionally mature and rational Irish government came to power.

I fundamentally disagree with you there. There is nothing understandable about the murder of innocent civilians in London, no matter what your political aims are/were.

Liam Byrne · 15-05-2010 7:45pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

It's neither understandable nor acceptable for the leader of a sovereign Irish government to allow his emotions and bitterness (over Billy Fox's death especially) interfere with the advancement of both this state and Ireland.

And do you think it's acceptable for the IRA to allow their bitterness to interfere with the right to life of other Irishmen and women ?

John Bruton: A career assessment

Comments