Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Best and worst Taoisigh
Options
-
14-02-2010 6:56pm#1Not sure if this should go here or in the politics forum but I'll put it here.Who in your opinion(s) were the best and worst Taoisigh in Ireland?
IMO, the best was Lemass.He turned Ireland from a underdeveloped backwater to a successful, sustainable (for a while at least) economy.He was the 1st Taoiseach to start building proper links with NI and given the contrast between Ireland in the 1950s and the Ireland Lemass built, his achievements seem even more remarkable.
And the worst?Has to be Garret Fitzgerald.He took a poor economy and made it much worse.His insane economic policies nearly bankrupted the country(crippling tax rates, unwillingness to cut public spending until it was almost too late etc).He gets an awful lot of credit in some quarters for the Anglo-Irish Agreement being a step towards the peace process, but I think this is nonsense.The agreement completely ignored and tried to sideline the hardline factions in NI(which was nonsense if you were pushing for peace) and was badly received by both communities, lest we forget.I think the agreement probably prolonged the troubles for a few years because it strengthened unionists resolve and was just grist to people like Paisleys mill.
Anyway, what do you think?0
Comments
-
I would agree with you that Lemass was the best Taoiseach we ever had. But he had was also lucky that the world economy rose during his reign.
Personality wise, I also liked Jack Lynch and Bertie (In the early years)
On the other side, Haughey was a crook and Cosgrave was a crank. I think that you're being a bit critical on Garret, I see what you're saying about the Anglo-Irish agreement halting the peace-process, but I don't agree with you. We could be thankful of it in a few years!0 -
I would agree with you that Lemass was the best Taoiseach we ever had. But he had was also lucky that the world economy rose during his reign.
Personality wise, I also liked Jack Lynch and Bertie (In the early years)
On the other side, Haughey was a crook and Cosgrave was a crank. I think that you're being a bit critical on Garret, I see what you're saying about the Anglo-Irish agreement halting the peace-process, but I don't agree with you. We could be thankful of it in a few years!
I think the main thing we learned from the Anglo-Irish Agreement is how NOT to deal with NI.Trying to "sideline" the hardliners is foolish and simply doesn't work if you are pushing for peace. Also the Irish government should be sure before making an agreement that the unionists are on board(which Garret didn't bother doing).
With regards Lynch-I wasn't alive with him as Taoiseach but I'd say I would have liked him if I had been.That said, his manifesto in 1977 was economic suicide and I'm still not sure if he stitched up his ministers during the Arms Trial.Agree with you about Cosgrave and Haughey. But while Haughey was a complete criminal he did a lot for the country between 1987 and 1989, no?(Obviously this doesn't excuse his actions).0 -
trapsagenius wrote: »Not sure if this should go here or in the politics forum but I'll put it here.Who in your opinion(s) were the best and worst Taoisigh in Ireland?
IMO, the best was Lemass.He turned Ireland from a underdeveloped backwater to a successful, sustainable (for a while at least) economy.He was the 1st Taoiseach to start building proper links with NI and given the contrast between Ireland in the 1950s and the Ireland Lemass built, his achievements seem even more remarkable.
And the worst?Has to be Garret Fitzgerald.He took a poor economy and made it much worse.His insane economic policies nearly bankrupted the country(crippling tax rates, unwillingness to cut public spending until it was almost too late etc).He gets an awful lot of credit in some quarters for the Anglo-Irish Agreement being a step towards the peace process, but I think this is nonsense.The agreement completely ignored and tried to sideline the hardline factions in NI(which was nonsense if you were pushing for peace) and was badly received by both communities, lest we forget.I think the agreement probably prolonged the troubles for a few years because it strengthened unionists resolve and was just grist to people like Paisleys mill.
Anyway, what do you think?
As a man for his time, Lemass, yes, his contributions to Irish society certainly stack up well. I would probably name him best too, the first and last decent leader FF ever gave the country.
As for Garret, love him or loathe him, the history books will most categorically place Bertie Ahern as the worst Taoiseach ever by a long country mile. No amount of finger pointing at anyone else will disguise or distract from that.
We had a lot of poor leaders, from all sides, who had varying levels of contribution, but nobody else who contributed NOTHING to Irish society only to drive it hard onto the rocks, and hand a whole generation of politics over to people whose own career aspirations were the beginning and end of their interest in the country. We are left with an entire FF front bench for whom Bertie was their political model, and who will rail against anyone who tries to bring ethics and vision back into politics, for many years to come.
That is fact, and the history books will hang that on Bertie's shameless head.0 -
As a man for his time, Lemass, yes, his contributions to Irish society certainly stack up well. I would probably name him best too, the first and last decent leader FF ever gave the country.
As for Garret, love him or loathe him, the history books will most categorically place Bertie Ahern as the worst Taoiseach ever by a long country mile. No amount of finger pointing at anyone else will disguise or distract from that.
We had a lot of poor leaders, from all sides, who had varying levels of contribution, but nobody else who contributed NOTHING to Irish society only to drive it hard onto the rocks, and hand a whole generation of politics over to people whose own career aspirations were the beginning and end of their interest in the country. We are left with an entire FF front bench for whom Bertie was their political model, and who will rail against anyone who tries to bring ethics and vision back into politics, for many years to come.
That is fact, and the history books will hang that on Bertie's shameless head.
Bit harsh on Bertie.You're conveniently leaving out all the great work he did in NI, as well as the economic growth during his tenure, especially from 1997 to 2002.So he had some accomplishments.Fitzgerald had ZERO accomplishments.He did more damage to the country as Taoiseach than anyone else, imo.He was a complete disaster from start to finish.0 -
As a man for his time, Lemass, yes, his contributions to Irish society certainly stack up well. I would probably name him best too, the first and last decent leader FF ever gave the country.
As for Garret, love him or loathe him, the history books will most categorically place Bertie Ahern as the worst Taoiseach ever by a long country mile. No amount of finger pointing at anyone else will disguise or distract from that.
We had a lot of poor leaders, from all sides, who had varying levels of contribution, but nobody else who contributed NOTHING to Irish society only to drive it hard onto the rocks, and hand a whole generation of politics over to people whose own career aspirations were the beginning and end of their interest in the country. We are left with an entire FF front bench for whom Bertie was their political model, and who will rail against anyone who tries to bring ethics and vision back into politics, for many years to come.
That is fact, and the history books will hang that on Bertie's shameless head.
I agree with trapsagenius, I reckon Bertie will be well received in the History books, his work in Northern Ireland and sure he raised the Celtic Tiger on his lap! It will show that Ireland didn't enter recession until after Bertie left office and his own personal problems will merely be a footnote. As for poor old Brian Cowen....0 -
Advertisement
-
Regarding, Garret Fitzgerald.
Fine Gael inherited a massive budget/fscal deficit in 1981 following 1977 FF Martin O Donoghue budget which crippled this country for the best part of a generation.
Fitzgerald helped pave the way for the Anglo Irish agreement giving this country a say in the affairs of North Ireland and the opening of an office at Hillsborough.
Fitzgerald goverment also legislated a lot of socially progressive legislation too.
The two worst Taiosigh have been Haughey and his spawn Ahern.
Haughey was proven to be a crook/tax avoider.
He was the first FF Taoiseach to have to enter coalition.
His first govt managed to get itself entangled with a convicted murders (McArthur).
The list of scandals and issues that his govt were involved in, is long.
Ahern.
His govts economic policies have created an even greater budgetary/fiscal deficit than the Lynch govt 1977-1981.
Leaving this country in the situation that we now find ourselves0 -
trapsagenius wrote: »Bit harsh on Bertie.You're conveniently leaving out all the great work he did in NI, as well as the economic growth during his tenure, especially from 1997 to 2002.So he had some accomplishments.Fitzgerald had ZERO accomplishments.He did more damage to the country as Taoiseach than anyone else, imo.He was a complete disaster from start to finish.
No, I'm deliberately leaving out anything Bertie did in NI. What he achieved there was handed to him on a plate by years of groundwork by others. And any mediation skills he might have displayed there in NO way make up for the subversion of his own state that was going on all the while, by him, and the crooks and scoundrels he promoted.
The 'economic growth' of 1997 to 2002 was the genesis of a catastrophic boom and bust that was made grotesquely worse by every single policy of Bertie and his governments. They could not have been more reckless, not just with the economy, but with people's livelihoods. Everything Bertie stood for was either cronyism, or cute hoorism, or downright crookedness, all sown up neatly by spin and lies, to the point where there wasn't a single thread of credibility in politics for that whole generation.
Bertie's policies RUINED people, and now that he is gone, he leaves behind a new generation of politics twisted and skewed by the obscene model he created. It could have been so, so different.0 -
Regarding, Garret Fitzgerald.
Fine Gael inherited a massive budget/fscal deficit in 1981 following 1977 FF Martin O Donoghue budget which crippled this country for the best part of a generation.
Fitzgerald helped pave the way for the Anglo Irish agreement giving this country a say in the affairs of North Ireland and the opening of an office at Hillsborough.
Fitzgerald goverment also legislated a lot of socially progressive legislation too.
The two worst Taiosigh have been Haughey and his spawn Ahern.
Haughey was proven to be a crook/tax avoider.
He was the first FF Taoiseach to have to enter coalition.
His first govt managed to get itself entangled with a convicted murders (McArthur).
The list of scandals and issues that his govt were involved in, is long.
Ahern.
His govts economic policies have created an even greater budgetary/fiscal deficit than the Lynch govt 1977-1981.
Leaving this country in the situation that we now find ourselves
Yes Fitzgerald inherited a deficit-but he did absolutly nothing to try to get to grips with it.And as far as I can see all the Anglo-Irish agreement did was prolong the troubles for a few years and show the British and Irish governments how NOT to come to an agreement.
As for Haughey, yes he was a crook, but as I stated earlier he helped the country out of a tight hole in 1987(again, I will admit his first 2 administrations were disastrous).As for going into coalition-that doesn't really reflect poorly on him as Taoiseach does it? And the Macarthur incident just seems to have been a freak occurence so saying that he "managed to entangle himself with murderers" is a bit harsh.While I'm not a Haughey apologist, and realise the man should never have been put in a position of power, I don't think he was the worst Taoiseach.
And again you're ignoring the work Bertie did on NI, which was superb.No, I'm deliberately leaving out anything Bertie did in NI. What he achieved there was handed to him on a plate by years of groundwork by others. And any mediation skills he might have displayed there in NO way make up for the subversion of his own state that was going on all the while, by him, and the crooks and scoundrels he promoted.
The 'economic growth' of 1997 to 2002 was the genesis of a catastrophic boom and bust that was made grotesquely worse by every single policy of Bertie and his governments. They could not have been more reckless, not just with the economy, but with people's livelihoods. Everything Bertie stood for was either cronyism, or cute hoorism, or downright crookedness, all sown up neatly by spin and lies, to the point where there wasn't a single thread of credibility in politics for that whole generation.
Bertie's policies RUINED people, and now that he is gone, he leaves behind a new generation of politics twisted and skewed by the obscene model he created. It could have been so, so different.
Well if you're "deliberately" leaving out an aspect of his government, you're not looking at all the facts and therefore are not in a position to judge.And saying that what he did was "handed to him on a plate" is complete nonsense.Do you not realise the amount of damage Bruton did to the Peace process?HE had it handed on a plate to him by Reynolds and he still managed to fvck it up.NI was Bertie's greatest achievement.Managing to get even hardliners such as Paisley on board only underlines this.
And I also disagree with you that the economic growth from 1997 to 2002 was based on a "boom and bust" sequence.While it could be argued that the later years of economic growth were, the first 5 years of growth under Ahern were based on an export based economy.0 -
What about all the taoisigh who turned a blind eye to the rapists and torturers of the Catholic church attacks on kids?
Does that not stand against any of them? :rolleyes:0 -
What about all the taoisigh who turned a blind eye to the rapists and torturers of the Catholic church attacks on kids?
Does that not stand against any of them? :rolleyes:
Couldn't that apply to society as a whole? Probably having the church in that position is what should be levelled against leaders.0 -
Advertisement
-
What about all the taoisigh who turned a blind eye to the rapists and torturers of the Catholic church attacks on kids?
Does that not stand against any of them? :rolleyes:
I could ignore this quote because it is so ridiculous but I won't.Wasn't the abuses that took place a matter for the church and the police?It had nothing to do with the Taoisigh of the country.I'd say most of them didn't even know so it was hardly turning a "blind eye".And as the previous poster said, why aren't you blaming society as a whole?0 -
I agree with trapsagenius, I reckon Bertie will be well received in the History books, his work in Northern Ireland and sure he raised the Celtic Tiger on his lap! It will show that Ireland didn't enter recession until after Bertie left office and his own personal problems will merely be a footnote. As for poor old Brian Cowen....
You could also say Bush was a good president as his term in office saw the american economy flourish. George Bush also went to Northern ireland and this was recorded as a symbolic touch down and was well recieved in which he put his seal of approval on devolution in northern ireland.
On those points George Bush must rank highly in your historical records.
As for poor old Barack Obama ...0 -
trapsagenius wrote: »And again you're ignoring the work Bertie did on NI, which was superb.
Seems that peace campaigners like Bertie, hold little or no interest to the general public.
Or at least the British public.
Berties autobiography book sales have scaled the pinnacle 15,000 copies in the UK.0 -
trapsagenius wrote: »Well if you're "deliberately" leaving out an aspect of his government, you're not looking at all the facts and therefore are not in a position to judge.And saying that what he did was "handed to him on a plate" is complete nonsense.Do you not realise the amount of damage Bruton did to the Peace process?HE had it handed on a plate to him by Reynolds and he still managed to fvck it up.NI was Bertie's greatest achievement.Managing to get even hardliners such as Paisley on board only underlines this.
And I also disagree with you that the economic growth from 1997 to 2002 was based on a "boom and bust" sequence.While it could be argued that the later years of economic growth were, the first 5 years of growth under Ahern were based on an export based economy.
Export based economy? Where is the export based economy now? Under whose watch was it flittered away? Bertie Ahern had a sound, sustainable country with fabulous prospects for being a model nation for the world. He buggered it and then flushed it down the toilet, like a child with a shiny new balloon, who bursts it to see what happens.
I don't rate Bertie's self aggrandised 'achievements' in the North. He did his bit, but there were other more crucial people than he. So I discount them. If a cheater and swindler helped old ladies cross the road on Friday afternoons, it wouldn't make me like him very much more.0 -
You could also say Bush was a good president as his term in office saw the american economy flourish. George Bush also went to Northern ireland and this was recorded as a symbolic touch down and was well recieved in which he put his seal of approval on devolution in northern ireland.
On those points George Bush must rank highly in your historical records.
As for poor old Barack Obama ...
That's not a measured comparison. Bertie Ahern never brought this country into a war that was none of our business. Taking that aside, which is difficult because it's such a major issue, George Bush's Presidency wouldn't have been so tarnished.
Bertie must have done something right, considering he won 3 general elections! I'm not saying that everything he did was great, but in my opinion calling him one of the worst Taoisigh we've ever had is a bit much.0 -
trapsagenius wrote: »I could ignore this quote because it is so ridiculous but I won't.Wasn't the abuses that took place a matter for the church and the police?It had nothing to do with the Taoisigh of the country.I'd say most of them didn't even know so it was hardly turning a "blind eye".And as the previous poster said, why aren't you blaming society as a whole?
Society "as a whole" was to blame, but the Taoiseach is the leader of the country and is in a position to invoke change.
Taoisigh knew as well as anyone else what was going, but they had the power to do something about it.
That cannot be ignored.0 -
You could also say Bush was a good president as his term in office saw the american economy flourish. George Bush also went to Northern ireland and this was recorded as a symbolic touch down and was well recieved in which he put his seal of approval on devolution in northern ireland.
On those points George Bush must rank highly in your historical records.
As for poor old Barack Obama ...
Thats BS. Bertie never lead Ireland into a pointless war.NI was (still is?) a massive issue in Ireland but it is a nothing issue in the US.NI was not a big concern of Bush's or the USA's so why should he receive credit for it?It was a huge issue in Ireland so that's why Bertie receives credit.Seems that peace campaigners like Bertie, hold little or no interest to the general public.
Or at least the British public.
Berties autobiography book sales have scaled the pinnacle 15,000 copies in the UK.
Well if his book didn't sell well he can't possibly have been a good Taoiseach can he:rolleyes:?Export based economy? Where is the export based economy now? Under whose watch was it flittered away? Bertie Ahern had a sound, sustainable country with fabulous prospects for being a model nation for the world. He buggered it and then flushed it down the toilet, like a child with a shiny new balloon, who bursts it to see what happens.
I don't rate Bertie's self aggrandised 'achievements' in the North. He did his bit, but there were other more crucial people than he. So I discount them. If a cheater and swindler helped old ladies cross the road on Friday afternoons, it wouldn't make me like him very much more.
I never said there is an export based economy now-I said there was one between 1997 to 2002.Who's fault in is that we're in the state we're in now is debatable-for example there's a whole thread on the public's role in it here -
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055830190.
I, personally, don't think Bertie deserves all the blame for the state we're in now.
And why don't you rate Bertie's achievements in NI?You mightn't like the man but surely you can give credit where it's due.Society "as a whole" was to blame, but the Taoiseach is the leader of the country and is in a position to invoke change.
Taoisigh knew as well as anyone else what was going, but they had the power to do something about it.
That cannot be ignored.
Stop embarrassing yourself.Can you give proof that the Taoisigh knew what was going on?And wasn't it a matter for the police and church rather than the head of government?
And even supposing that you're completely right and the Taoisigh did know-surely if they all knew what was going on it would count against all of them and so therefore can be discounted?0 -
The best De Valera for guiding the state through it's early years.
The worst Haughey (for his financial rape of Ireland).
There is a lot about de Valera I disagree with but on balance he would be the best in the history of the state.0 -
The best De Valera for guiding the state through it's early years.
The worst Haughey (for his financial rape of Ireland).
There is a lot about de Valera I disagree with but on balance he would be the best in the history of the state.
I can see where you're coming from with Dev-he was a fantastic Taoiseach.Turning the country into a republic in "all but name", the constitution, successfully leading Ireland through WW2 were all magnificent achievements.He gets some criticism for his protectionism policies but people forget that this was only a few years since the wall street crash and was an accepted practice in the 1930s.And while some so-called historians such as TP Coogan have criticised him heavily in recent years I'm pleased to see that most historians have come around and seen him for what a great Taoiseach he was.So yes, Dev is certainly up there with the best of them.
As for Haughey however, I don't think he financially raped the country.While he contributed, the majority of the blame has to fall on Garret Fitzgerald.And the administration he lead from 1987 to 1989 was one of the best in recent years.He helped turn the country around when it was essentially on the verge of bankruptcy.0 -
[QUOTE=trapsagenius;64546266
Stop embarrassing yourself.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, I'm not.trapsagenius wrote: »Can you give proof that the Taoisigh knew what was going on?And wasn't it a matter for the police and church rather than the head of government?
If they didn't know they should have. They were running the country ffs.trapsagenius wrote: »And even supposing that you're completely right and the Taoisigh did know-surely if they all knew what was going on it would count against all of them and so therefore can be discounted?
Where do you start with a comment like that? :rolleyes:
And for Dev's supporters, don't forget about his corruption with the Irish Press...0 -
Advertisement
-
What about DeValera's economic war and his Luddite tendencies. His constitution, although impeccable in many ways, was very conservative given its ostentatious religious references, which did contribute to the Republic's being perceived as a papal vassal.0
-
What about DeValera's economic war and his Luddite tendencies. His constitution, although impeccable in many ways, was very conservative given its ostentatious religious references
Which luddite tendencies were those ?
Conservative constitution ? What exactly were you expecting from a catholic leader in a catholic country free for the first time to write it's own constitution after centuries of religious persecution of the catholic faith. I think in the context of that time it's pretty exemplary. Looking at it now from a 21st century free and liberal point of view it's easy to criticise but in context it is perfectly fine in my view.0 -
Worst is Clowen .. And he's not even finished yet.0
-
Which luddite tendencies were those ?
He did advocate a frugal, pastoral society. He certainly wasn't to the fore on modernisation.Conservative constitution ? What exactly were you expecting from a catholic leader in a catholic country free for the first time to write it's own constitution after centuries of religious persecution of the catholic faith. I think in the context of that time it's pretty exemplary. Looking at it now from a 21st century free and liberal point of view it's easy to criticise but in context it is perfectly fine in my view.
I did acknowledge its impressive democratic credentials, so yes, kudos must go to him for that. I think I'll stand over the rest though. As a republican there was no ideological need for him to include overtly religious references in the text. Looking back from a 21st-century perspective one can see that this is where the unhealthy bond between church and state set in. Yes, fine, you can argue that the constitution was of its time; but you could, actually, equally argue that as a statesman active in an ideologically-driven period there was no imperative for him to wed the state so closely to Catholicism. If he was a great Taoiseach, in my view, he would instead have written a wholly republican text that separated church and state more clearly. This should have been quite clear to him given the religious tensions on the island. It is not anachronistic to say he could have done that.
I don't think he was the worst Taoiseach ever though.0 -
He did advocate a frugal, pastoral society. He certainly wasn't to the fore on modernisation.
You can call it frugal and pastoral - I'd call it promoting agricultural & economic self sufficiency. Not as trendy in the post EU Ireland of today.Looking back from a 21st-century perspective one can see that this is where the unhealthy bond between church and state set in.
It is really only in recent decades that the bond between church and state was considered to have been an 'unhealthy bond', at that time it was not widely considered unhealthy except in the margins of society. Yes there were protestants in the republic who'd have preferred less religious overtone but the constitution was not anti-protestant at all.If he was a great Taoiseach, in my view, he would instead have written a wholly republican text that separated church and state more clearly.
Being more republican and less religious is not a factor in rating a Taoiseach.This should have been quite clear to him given the religious tensions on the island.
There were religious tensions on the island with catholics in the north bearing the brunt. Writing a non catholic, secular constitution would not necessarily have been their choice. Besides had he done that the unionists would have shifted from crying 'papists' to crying something else. Religious tensions would still have exsisted. He did not create or exacerbate them in my view.0 -
He certainly called it that himself, in fact referring to 'frugal comfort' and 'fields and meadows' and lauding those things as national ideals.You can call it frugal and pastoral
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. But 'modernisation' as a concept isn't something projected backward from now to the 1930s and 40s. Other countries - democracies too - were bent on building dams, power stations and motorway networks at this time.Not as trendy in the post EU Ireland of today.
Yet clearly important elements of it were unhealthy - as recent reports have shown. This is not retrospective history; abuses were happening during Dev's tenure and they would have been considered wrong then too, even by the standards of the day.It is really only in recent decades that the bond between church and state was considered to have been an 'unhealthy bond', at thattime it was not widely considered unhealthy except in the margins of society.Being more republican and less religious is not a factor in rating a Taoiseach.
We differ there. Dev could have been as religious a man as he liked. But as a political republican I think he could have kept his constitution purely republican. This would not have been a shocking thing for him to have done - surprising, yes, but not shocking. Had he done so, the people would have backed him. Catholicism and the ideals of Irish republicanism were conflated in the document and I think that has been to the detriment of the country. It was not impossible for Dev to have anticipated this; and the fact that he didn't anticipate it - or, that he did anticipate it and ignored it anyway - detracts from his achievements in my view and discounts him from being a great Taoiseach.There were religious tensions on the island with catholics in the north bearing the brunt. Writing a non catholic, secular constitution would not necessarily have been their choice. Besides had he done that the unionists would have shifted from crying 'papists' to crying something else. Religious tensions would still have exsisted. He did not create or exacerbate them in my view.
Well, I think one of the unionist arguments against Home Rule was that it would lead to Rome Rule. And sure enough, it did. Reasons: One, by excluding themselves the unionists basically barred themselves from contribution, so their prophesy became self-fulfilling. Two, Dev set a precedent in the Bunreacht that he did not have to set. He definitely didn't create religious tensions (they were there already as everyone knows), but I do think he steered the 26 counties down a path that resulted in a thoroughly insoluble schism with all things northern, and I think it didn't necessarily have to reach that point. The constitution - among several other things - contributed to this.
And there I shall leave it. A pleasure, morlar.0 -
Two things-I wouldn't really characterise Dev as "luddite"-as Morlar says, he was a man of his time and lets not forget he set up cpmpanies like Aer Lingus and the Sugar Factory.
Secondly, about the constitution, it was well ahead of his time.Dev, while perhaps giving too much power to the Catholic Church, resisted the temptation to discriminate against protestants like the protestants were doing to catholics in NI-lets not forget that Douglas Hyde, a protestant, was our first President.Also about the constitution-look at when it was written.1937.This was when dictators like Mussolini, Franco and Hitler were in power in Europe and Dev was still able to write a constitution that firmly entrenched Ireland in democracy and is still applicable (in the most part) to 21st century Ireland.0 -
trapsagenius wrote: »Two things-I wouldn't really characterise Dev as "luddite"-as Morlar says, he was a man of his time and lets not forget he set up cpmpanies like Aer Lingus and the Sugar Factory.
Secondly, about the constitution, it was well ahead of his time.Dev, while perhaps giving too much power to the Catholic Church, resisted the temptation to discriminate against protestants like the protestants were doing to catholics in NI-lets not forget that Douglas Hyde, a protestant, was our first President.Also about the constitution-look at when it was written.1937.This was when dictators like Mussolini, Franco and Hitler were in power in Europe and Dev was still able to write a constitution that firmly entrenched Ireland in democracy and is still applicable (in the most part) to 21st century Ireland.
The bloody pre-amble is diddly dee us irish are great catlicks and god loves us, bloody embarassing.0 -
I agree with the praise of lemass.
jack lynch seems to have been a Gent
I admire Garret Fitzgerald greatly. prob the finest person to hold the position.
these are my opinions, no back up available, just observations
regards Rugbyman0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement