Yes, they were doing pretty great, so great that the name "Celtic Tiger" was invented specifically to describe the Irish economy.
Like most economies that have inflationary currencies, this led to exuberance and dumping of money into a housing bubble, on the theory that whilst money inflates away houses don't. Being in the Euro had nothing to do with this, it's a disease that affected the USA and the UK as well, even though they have their own currencies and central banks. In fact these governments (but especially the UK) were all desperately trying to push people into the housing bubble due a massive and misguided social engineering program rooted in the belief that home-ownership is an end rather than a means.
But this is not specific to Ireland. It's actually a problem fundamental to an environment with compound inflation (recall that at 2% per year, prices go up every year by more than the previous year because inflation is expressed as a percentage rise on the previous year, not a fixed reference point).
Quoting the wikipedia article I linked:
During that time, Ireland experienced a boom, which transformed it from one of Europe's poorer countries into one of its wealthiest. The causes of Ireland's growth are the subject of some debate, but credit has been primarily given to state-driven economic development; social partnership among employers, government and unions; increased participation by women in the labour force; decades of investment in domestic higher education; targeting of foreign direct investment; a low corporation tax rate; an English-speaking workforce; and membership of the European Union which provided transfer payments and export access to the Single Market.
So they went from one of the poorest countries in Europe to being equal to some of the best in only a couple of decades, and a big chunk of that was due to low corporation tax (but not necessarily low taxes in general, mind you) combined with access to the single market.
The Irish people love their low corporation taxes and did not really raise them even during the global recession, because they have attracted tons of very high-skilled jobs from well known, rich corporations - companies like Apple, Google, Intel and others. The latter two alone created tens of thousands of jobs, which in a small country is a Big Deal, and they're far from the only ones. So not surprisingly, a policy that has created a spigot of good local jobs is popular - a government with higher tax revenues but that spends it all on welfare is not obviously a better state to be in.
This isn't necessarily a strategy that can be replicated everywhere: Ireland was catching up from behind during its boom years, not accelerating ahead of all the other countries. And some of its appeal to international companies was the fact that it wasn't very rich, so wages weren't extremely high. But there are other parts of Europe that are now also behind (think: Spain, Portugal, northern England), so perhaps they can consider whether the same strategy would help.
Some will say this leads to a race to the bottom, and there's some truth to that, but the question is does it matter? It's not like taxing corporations is the only way to raise revenue. Indeed, if you trace a money flow, you'll see that when someone buys something, there's sales tax/VAT paid on that. Then (ignoring the case where the money is sent back to HQ abroad for a moment), it's booked as profit and tax is paid on that too, and then the company pays its wages and possibly pays employment taxes as part of that, and of course property taxes for the place where the employees work, the employee pays income taxes on their wages as well, and in some places also pays a wealth tax at the end. So by the time the money has flowed from one person to another (which is what we really care about, given that economies are ultimately made of and in service of people), it's been taxed many times repeatedly. Rebalancing that does not imply a lower overall tax take, but it may imply a simpler tax system, less paperwork and lower deadweight costs!
All of that is the sort of argument you might find in an academic discussion of tax incidence. What really happens is that corporation taxes are used as a way to try and address social inequality because corporate profits are perceived as making a handful of people extraordinarily wealthy (whether this is the best way to address that, is a matter I leave on the table for further debate).