Sir, – By the end of John Bruton’s premiership in 1997, his government had overseen the first surplus in a generation, inflation was at 2 per cent and public expenditure with associated investment in services had increased.
In 1997, most professionals working owned their own house or were able to buy one without undue difficulty. John Bruton’s philosophy on corporation tax as implemented within his administration created huge numbers of high-quality, high-earning jobs and accordingly colossal tax revenue streams into the exchequer for redistribution, the effect of which is still observable today.
Mr Bruton’s prudent engagement with an equally pragmatic British counterpart in former prime minister John Major resulted in the joint framework document being agreed, which was a core foundation stone for the Belfast Agreement and power-sharing in the North, which was effectively restored to a working degree again just last weekend availing of principles as set out in that framework document. It is regrettable that Mr Bruton did not receive greater acknowledgement by commentators for his work during last year’s 25th anniversary of the Belfast Agreement.
Mr Bruton’s work in Government brought at the time unprecedented prosperity and a more reliable, stable future to the Irish people. He deserves to be regarded as one of the greatest political leaders and taoisigh this country has ever witnessed, bearing in mind the outstanding political outcomes in real terms he encouraged and oversaw. – Yours, etc,
Cllr JOHN KENNEDY,
(Fine Gael),
Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council Offices,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Ronan McGreevy is quite correct in saying that most – though not all – professional historians rejected John Bruton’s view of 1916 and the War of Independence (“Former taoiseach believed Easter Rising unnecessary to achieve Irish statehood”, News, February 7th). I think, however, these historians misunderstood his position.
John Bruton was widely and deeply read in history, but his main concern was the effect that history has on politics today – in particular, the effect of historical commemorations. He once wrote in The Irish Times that “commemoration is a form of education for the future” (November 11th, 2011). He reckoned that 1916 and what flowed from it had left a legacy of legitimising political violence, and that this should not be celebrated. Constitutional nationalism had had great achievements before 1916, and that tradition represented a better model for the stable democratic state that we had become.
John Bruton did not deny history or the importance of 1916, but he would have seen the foundational event of the state as the First Dáil – not the 1916 Rising, which lacked a democratic mandate. And the First Dáil drew on the tradition of constitutional nationalism as much as – and probably more than – the cult of violent revolution.
As has been noted in the obituaries, his family background was in the Centre Party, a remnant of the old Irish Parliamentary Party – and no doubt this helped to shape his views. He had a strong sense that the party of Parnell and Redmond had been unjustly cast aside by the Irish revolution.
It is a great puzzle to me that we can now commemorate the Irish who served in the Great War, but it is still problematic to honour those who sought Irish independence at Westminster and very nearly succeeded. A lot of trouble on the island of Ireland might have been avoided had they succeeded, and John Bruton was right to remind us of that. – Yours, etc,
FELIX M LARKIN,
Dublin 18.