Home Rule Act implemented before WWI

[Modern Imperialism]

I think Taiwan might want a word with you.....unless you are excluding them as not being formally independent. Singapore would also respectfully disagree.

Sorry forgot about Taiwan. Also Singapore is more of a city state which I consider something a bit different. Most island nations have had inconsistent economic growth at best since ww2.

 

[sparky42]

Sorry forgot about Taiwan. Also Singapore is more of a city state which I consider something a bit different. Most island nations have had inconsistent economic growth at best since ww2.

Does that include Australia?

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Does that include Australia?

Australia is basically a continent

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Does that include Australia?

My basic point most island nations have trouble at being self sustaining or depend too much on trade with other countries which often lead them to economic issues. This is why before ww2 many islands nations had been part of or were empires.

 

[jsb]

My basic point most island nations have trouble at being self sustaining or depend too much on trade with other countries which often lead them to economic issues. This is why before ww2 many islands nations had been part of or were empires.

Was most of the world not part of "Empires" (especially if you consider the US and USSR to be de-facto empires) pre WWII?

I question if your island definition actually means anything or just a sample size of one? What other island is comparable to UK?

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Was most of the world not part of "Empires" (especially if you consider the US and USSR to be de-facto empires) pre WWII?

I question if your island definition actually means anything or just a sample size of one? What other island is comparable to UK?

UK, Ireland, Philippines, Indonesia, Madagascar, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, and Caribbean nations.

 

[sparky42]

UK, Ireland, Philippines, Indonesia, Madagascar, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, and Caribbean nations.

This is going off topic but WHAT?

Putting the UK on the same category of most of those is simply pointless. The UK (and technically if you want an island it would be GB not UK) dwarfs most of that list in population sizes and thus automatically has a stronger, more robust and resilient economy, of that list the only two where the UK doesn't have a major population advantage are developing nations with significant instability within their nations hence creating their own economic problems. I mean putting Ireland (population 4.8m-6.6m depending on how you want to judge it) on the same scale as a nation of over 60 million is utterly pointless.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

This is going off topic but WHAT?

Putting the UK on the same category of most of those is simply pointless. The UK (and technically if you want an island it would be GB not UK) dwarfs most of that list in population sizes and thus automatically has a stronger, more robust and resilient economy, of that list the only two where the UK doesn't have a major population advantage are developing nations with significant instability within their nations hence creating their own economic problems. I mean putting Ireland (population 4.8m-6.6m depending on how you want to judge it) on the same scale as a nation of over 60 million is utterly pointless.

The point I'm trying to make is that island nations usually depend on foreign trade and the global market more so to survive. The United States can provide itself with most if not all of their needs if required to. Britain or Ireland have to trade with people to feed themselves.

 

[jsb]

The point I'm trying to make is that island Any medium/small nations usually depend on foreign trade and the global market more so to survive. The United States any continent sized state ie USA/USSR can provide itself with most if not all of their needs if required to. Britain or Ireland have to trade with people to feed themselves.

I think this is more the case and being and island just makes the trade easier and cheaper giving you more option than just the next door states. This is why GB was one of the first to focus on trade so much as ship burn trade was easier than horse & carts.

 

[Lord Wyclif]

You are quite right the previous post was however typical of some English people who consistently refuse to acknowledge that Ireland is a country and not a dependent part of the UK.

Suggest you do some research. If you cared to look up my profile you’d discover the one thin I ain’t, and that English.

As regarding the EU and the Celtic Tiger, the truth hurts.

 

[Lord Wyclif]

At the start of the 1990s, Ireland was a poor country by West European standards, with high poverty, unemployment, inflation, and low growth. The Republic of Ireland’s economy expanded at an average rate of 9.4% between 1995 and 2000 and continued to grow at an average rate of 5.9% during the following decade until 2008 when it collapsed.

Books by authors such as Conor McCabe, Peadar Kirby and others, to argue that in fact economic uncertainty, mass unemployment and emigration are the ‘normality’ for capitalism in Ireland. Mass unemployment and emigration were near constant features of the economy from 1922 to 1992, reflecting an underlying inability of indigenous capitalism to develop the economy and the sporadic and shallow nature of multinational-led growth. (IRSP)

After 70 years of stagnation in the number of jobs, employment skyrocketed.

With the Celtic Tiger unemployment fell from 14.3% to 3.8% within 5 years.

On the surface, at least, the Irish economy appeared to have been transformed. From 1994 to 2001 the key motor of the Celtic Tiger was a dramatic increase in levels of Foreign Direct Investment particularly from the USA & 40% of the funding required was supplied by the EU. If you happened to live on this island during the 90’s and early 21st century you’d have noticed all the sign post, “project part funded by the EU”. Funnily enough the signs are all up north now.


During the 90’s boom, Irish companies developed rapidly, but were still rising the coattails of multinationals. So, for instance, in the software industry, the “most spectacular success story” of the 90’s boom, Irish companies only accounted for €1bn of the €16bn worth of products and services produced here, even though they accounted for 85% of all companies in the industry. The other €15bn was produced by a small group of large multinationals based in Ireland. (Decline in FDI: Kirby)


With the drop in foreign investment the Irish economy collapsed. FDI fell from €27bn in 2002 to €1.5bn in 2004.


With the Celtic Tiger came the demand for property. Instead of people emigrating their was a reversal with mass immigration.

Demand for property grew and so did the cost. The number of homes being built increased by 300% and demand could still not be met. Banks loaned money to develop property which were grossly overvalued. Developers who were unable to pay back their debts, banks who weren’t getting paid, and increasing homeowners struggling to pay mortgages. Property portfolio’s that showed €1,000,000 being made, declined into negative equity.


Unemployment again rose to 323,000 in 2012 plus a further 356,000 or 2% of the population emigrated from 2009 to 2012.


Capital investment as a percentage of GDP, has fell from 27% down to a mere 10%. This rate of investment only 50% of the pre-EEC 1970’s.


Mass unemployment and emigration are not temporary problems, but near permanent features of the Irish economy. That boom, of the Celtic Tiger was unfortunately an artificial blip and did not fundamentally overcome the underlying weaknesses of the Irish economy. Domestic industry remained infantile, and multinational investment shallow. The result is that once the sugar rush of the boom disappeared, the economy ended up back where it was before, but this time with massive debts from a speculative property boom.

 

[MickCz]

At the start of the 1990s, Ireland was a poor country by West European standards, with high poverty, unemployment, inflation, and low growth. The Republic of Ireland’s economy expanded at an average rate of 9.4% between 1995 and 2000 and continued to grow at an average rate of 5.9% during the following decade until 2008 when it collapsed.

Books by authors such as Conor McCabe, Peadar Kirby and others, to argue that in fact economic uncertainty, mass unemployment and emigration are the ‘normality’ for capitalism in Ireland. Mass unemployment and emigration were near constant features of the economy from 1922 to 1992, reflecting an underlying inability of indigenous capitalism to develop the economy and the sporadic and shallow nature of multinational-led growth. (IRSP)

After 70 years of stagnation in the number of jobs, employment skyrocketed.

With the Celtic Tiger unemployment fell from 14.3% to 3.8% within 5 years.

On the surface, at least, the Irish economy appeared to have been transformed. From 1994 to 2001 the key motor of the Celtic Tiger was a dramatic increase in levels of Foreign Direct Investment particularly from the USA & 40% of the funding required was supplied by the EU. If you happened to live on this island during the 90’s and early 21st century you’d have noticed all the sign post, “project part funded by the EU”. Funnily enough the signs are all up north now.


During the 90’s boom, Irish companies developed rapidly, but were still rising the coattails of multinationals. So, for instance, in the software industry, the “most spectacular success story” of the 90’s boom, Irish companies only accounted for €1bn of the €16bn worth of products and services produced here, even though they accounted for 85% of all companies in the industry. The other €15bn was produced by a small group of large multinationals based in Ireland. (Decline in FDI: Kirby)


With the drop in foreign investment the Irish economy collapsed. FDI fell from €27bn in 2002 to €1.5bn in 2004.


With the Celtic Tiger came the demand for property. Instead of people emigrating their was a reversal with mass immigration.

Demand for property grew and so did the cost. The number of homes being built increased by 300% and demand could still not be met. Banks loaned money to develop property which were grossly overvalued. Developers who were unable to pay back their debts, banks who weren’t getting paid, and increasing homeowners struggling to pay mortgages. Property portfolio’s that showed €1,000,000 being made, declined into negative equity.


Unemployment again rose to 323,000 in 2012 plus a further 356,000 or 2% of the population emigrated from 2009 to 2012.


Capital investment as a percentage of GDP, has fell from 27% down to a mere 10%. This rate of investment only 50% of the pre-EEC 1970’s.


Mass unemployment and emigration are not temporary problems, but near permanent features of the Irish economy. That boom, of the Celtic Tiger was unfortunately an artificial blip and did not fundamentally overcome the underlying weaknesses of the Irish economy. Domestic industry remained infantile, and multinational investment shallow. The result is that once the sugar rush of the boom disappeared, the economy ended up back where it was before, but this time with massive debts from a speculative property boom.

Interesting stuff.

Whilst not disputing your figures, I had assumed that Ireland's economic problems prior to the 1990s were due to the continuation of de Valera's policies of Ireland being basically a rural conservative society. With accession to the EEC and the fading of de Camera's influence, more liberal economic and social policies were possible. Would this not have led to more growth in any event, and possibly more deeply based?

 

[sparky42]

Mass unemployment and emigration are not temporary problems, but near permanent features of the Irish economy. That boom, of the Celtic Tiger was unfortunately an artificial blip and did not fundamentally overcome the underlying weaknesses of the Irish economy. Domestic industry remained infantile, and multinational investment shallow. The result is that once the sugar rush of the boom disappeared, the economy ended up back where it was before, but this time with massive debts from a speculative property boom.

And yet we're at the highest population in the history of the state, the highest employment population in the history of the state (higher than Pre Crash levels btw), and will most likely hit maximum economic employment next year, all of which is happening with the Construction sector still a shadow of it's former self, if that was back to sustainable levels we'd already be at full employment (it's also one of the reasons why we're back with a housing issue). Multinational employment is less 5% of the total employment of the nation with another 5% or so leveraging off that with the rest being domestic employment, of course the Multinational tax games screw with the tax base but even the CSO's models still leave the Republic at one of the highest growth rates in the EU again.

 

[Lord Wyclif]

More than half of Republic of Ireland’s current population wasn’t born when the nation voted to join the European Economic Community (EEC) back in 1972.

It’s undoubtedly the most significant step the country has taken on its journey as an independent nation but most of us aren’t old enough to remember what living in Ireland was like before we became a Member State.

For more than four decades now European Union membership has helped improve every aspect of Irish life, from how we work, travel and shop to the quality of our environment, our opportunities for learning and the way our businesses buy and sell their goods and services.

These changes are now so much a part of everyday life that we take them for granted.

Even though we were an independent country long before we joined the European Union, Ireland in 1973 was still economically dependent on the UK and struggling to find its feet in the international community.

That’s no longer the case, and Ireland now exports all over the world and influences global events through its voice in the European Union.

The country has been a net recipient of European funds since we joined the EU, and will remain so throughout the duration of the current EU financial plan, the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). This basically means we get more money out of the EU than we put in.

According to European Commission figures, Ireland’s net gain from EU budgets has been €44.6 billion since 1976.

EU membership has helped Ireland attract billions of euro in direct foreign investment, creating thousands of job opportunities for Irish people.

In 1973 the Republic of Ireland’s economy was highly dependent on agriculture, with 24% of the working population employed in the sector. Today, the agri-food industry is still an important part of our economy, providing 8.4% of national employment. However, EU membership has helped Ireland develop other industries like services, pharmaceuticals and ICT (Information Communications Technology) making our economy more diverse and therefore stronger.

In 1973 when Ireland joined the EU just 27,135 Irish students reached third level education. By 2015 that figure had increased to 173,649.

Please note all of the above facts, are supplied by the government of RoI, indicate Ireland would still have a backwater agricultural based economy, if it wasn’t for the EU’s money.


However back to topic; could the industrial north bankroll the south long enough for the EU benefits to be financed in house?

Also what would be the effect of the North’s heavy industrial collapse of the late70’s early 80’s have on the overall economy?

Would EU membership for the whole island Irish state benefit the economy, if so when would we’ve joined, sooner, later or same date?

Bearing in mind the large “Irish” population in the USA, could better trade be carried out within its sphere of influence, plus our old ‘friends’ within the commonwealth?

 

[fasquardon]

Also what would be the effect of the North’s heavy industrial collapse of the late70’s early 80’s have on the overall economy?

I imagine that if the North was the engine of a united Ireland, then come the 70s the government of Ireland is likely to make different policy decisions from those chosen by the UK government, whose engine was in London (and thus policies favoured London to the detriment of the more industrial parts of the country like Belfast).

While it's hard to keep shipbuilding being as important as it was during the first half of the 20th Century, I can see the North remaining a thriving industrial region as new industries rise to take some of the slack caused by the decline of the older industries. Also, shipbuilding could remain a major industry with the right policies (not to say it'd be easy, though).

fasquardon