Ireland stays in the UK after 1916 Easter Uprising to present day?

Would it have been advantagous to Ireland in terms of economy? I'll freely admit that post 22 through to the 60's Ireland's economic policies were "unwise", yet I'm doubtful that the UK would have been willing to invest heavily in the wider nation, would the UK have been willing to extend the budget supports to all Ireland that they extended to NI? Would a Westminister Government/public be happy at sending 30+ billion a year to Ireland (just assuming that NI's current transfer is tripled for all of Ireland). Would the domestic companies in Ireland have come into being or would English companies have dominated? Would Ireland have remained heavily rural/agricultral or transitioned to the high tech sectors that we now have (not too mention that we couldn't have competed with England as we do now).

In terms of Social history, considering NI is still the most socially conservative of the Union, short of an early breaking of the Catholic Church I don't see Ireland changing massively (particularly if there was some form of Home Rule), like wise I doubt Ireland would have enough MP's to majorly delay any decisions the rest of the UK made.

Yes I think Ireland would benefit economically. For one thing there would be an economies of scale effect and another no Anglo-Irish trade war.

IIRC Ireland had 100 MPs in Westminster if most of the Irish voted for an Irish political party (instead of Labour, Liberal and Conservative like Scotland and Wales did) that often held the balance of power then the Westminster Government would often have to give in to their demands for infrastructure and industrial projects (like an extension of the Transmission System of gas pipelines).

You are probably right that the Westminster Government/public would not be happy about spending +30 billion, but I think they would still do it in spite of that. It would be a continuation of the killing the independence movement through kindness policy. It's somewhat like the Westminster Government spending more money per head on Scotland than it does per head in England.

On the other hand the Greater-UK would be making a smaller net contribution to the EU. That is what it pays in would be offset by the money that Ireland gets out. Therefore the EU might be more popular/less unpopular with the English.

I simply don't know if the Southern Irish economy would have developed along the lines you outlined.

I don't know if the social history would have been different either. I think that when abortion and homosexuality were made legal in Great Britain they remained illegal in Northern Ireland. If I am correct that might have been to placate the Northern Irish MPs or it was because Northern Ireland was a self-governing province at the time. Perhaps ITTL the reforms would not have been applied to the whole of Ireland if there had been a United Ireland within the United Kingdom regardless of whether it was governed from Westminster or if there was an Irish Parliament with the same powers that the Northern Irish Parliament of 1921-72.

However, on a half-serious not the late great Dave Allen, did a routine on why there were so many Irish people in England. His answer was that they weren't here for economic reasons, they were here for the sex.

Also half-seriously I think the UK should have built the North Channel Tunnel from Scotland to Ulster instead of the English Channel Tunnel.
 
Yes I think Ireland would benefit economically. For one thing there would be an economies of scale effect and another no Anglo-Irish trade war.

IIRC Ireland had 100 MPs in Westminster if most of the Irish voted for an Irish political party (instead of Labour, Liberal and Conservative like Scotland and Wales did) that often held the balance of power then the Westminster Government would often have to give in to their demands for infrastructure and industrial projects (like an extension of the Transmission System of gas pipelines).

As I've said, nobody can deny the economic policies of the 20's-60's were horrible for Ireland, though without the Trade War, the Irish rural community would still be paying back land annuities from the Land War for a period beyond that so who knows the actual break down. And more to the point some massive impacts were going to happen anyway short of vastly different management,ie the collapse of the Irish Whiskey industry due to Prohibition in the States with all the knock ons to rural areas).

But the question is what shape would the Irish economy be in? Based on historic policies it's more likely that the majority of Ireland would have stayed farming with most of the value added work being done in the UK. Moreover short of killing the Third Home Rule Bill the Irish MP's are going to be reduced to what, 42 MPs, not enough to hold the balance of power, particularly if there's still a division between Ulster MP's and Southern MP's

You are probably right that the Westminster Government/public would not be happy about spending +30 billion, but I think they would still do it in spite of that. It would be a continuation of the killing the independence movement through kindness policy. It's somewhat like the Westminster Government spending more money per head on Scotland than it does per head in England.

On the other hand the Greater-UK would be making a smaller net contribution to the EU. That is what it pays in would be offset by the money that Ireland gets out. Therefore the EU might be more popular/less unpopular with the English.

And what about the CAP funding that Ireland gets (a not so small amount), would that affect what the UK's rebate would be? Or again how Rural Ireland is funded.
I don't know if the social history would have been different either. I think that when abortion and homosexuality were made legal in Great Britain they remained illegal in Northern Ireland. If I am correct that might have been to placate the Northern Irish MPs or it was because Northern Ireland was a self-governing province at the time. Perhaps ITTL the reforms would not have been applied to the whole of Ireland if there had been a United Ireland within the United Kingdom regardless of whether it was governed from Westminster or if there was an Irish Parliament with the same powers that the Northern Irish Parliament of 1921-72.

However, on a half-serious not the late great Dave Allen, did a routine on why there were so many Irish people in England. His answer was that they weren't here for economic reasons, they were here for the sex.

Also half-seriously I think the UK should have built the North Channel Tunnel from Scotland to Ulster instead of the English Channel Tunnel.

There's no economicaly sustainable way to fund such a tunnel or make it long term viable, it would make the sunk costs of the Chunnel look minor, not too mention the Irish rail system isn't integrated enough or capable of supporting High speed rail and I'm guessing Scotland's isn't either, the Chunnel connects 2 G8 nations and their capitals. A White Elephant of a Northern Tunnel would just be a "bridge to nowhere" situation.
 
As I've said, nobody can deny the economic policies of the 20's-60's were horrible for Ireland, though without the Trade War, the Irish rural community would still be paying back land annuities from the Land War for a period beyond that so who knows the actual break down. And more to the point some massive impacts were going to happen anyway short of vastly different management,ie the collapse of the Irish Whiskey industry due to Prohibition in the States with all the knock ons to rural areas).

But the question is what shape would the Irish economy be in? Based on historic policies it's more likely that the majority of Ireland would have stayed farming with most of the value added work being done in the UK. Moreover short of killing the Third Home Rule Bill the Irish MP's are going to be reduced to what, 42 MPs, not enough to hold the balance of power, particularly if there's still a division between Ulster MP's and Southern MP's

I cant contradict any of that because I don't know enough.

I can say is that IOTL the Westminster Government move parts of the Civil Service from London to economically depressed areas. Therefore departments that were moved to the north of England, Scotland or Wales IOTL might be moved to Ireland ITTL.

In the 1960s the Government forced the British motor industry to build new plants in Merseyside and Clydeside rather than the West Midlands and some might be built in Ireland ITTL.

And what about the CAP funding that Ireland gets (a not so small amount), would that affect what the UK's rebate would be? Or again how Rural Ireland is funded.
That is what I meant when I wrote that the Greater UK's net contribution ITTL would be less than the UK net contribution IOTL. That is there is a smaller difference between what it pays in and what it pays out.

That might make the British population less euro-sceptic. However, it might make us think, "We pay our taxes to HMRC, who take their administration charges out of it. Then they give it to the Eurocrats in Brussels who take their administration charges out of it. Then they give some it back to us. Why don't we cut out the middlemen in Brussels? It will be quicker and cheaper."

Between 1945 and 1973 the British farmers were paid subsidies by the British Ministry of Agriculture so the Southern Irish farmers would have received them too. I don't know if they were subsidised by the Irish Government during that period anyway IOTL.

There's no economicaly sustainable way to fund such a tunnel or make it long term viable, it would make the sunk costs of the Chunnel look minor, not too mention the Irish rail system isn't integrated enough or capable of supporting High speed rail and I'm guessing Scotland's isn't either, the Chunnel connects 2 G8 nations and their capitals. A White Elephant of a Northern Tunnel would just be a "bridge to nowhere" situation.
I was only being half-serious. I think they should have done both :D. (About 10 years ago I wrote a timeline where both of them were built, but it was an ASB where the population of the British Isles had been double the real world since 1500).

I'm not sure that it would have been more expensive. IIRC Stranraer to Larne is shorter than the Dover to Calais. Again IIRC the problems with the North Channel are that it is deeper and the rock is harder to drill through.

Because I was joking I hadn't thought about the state of the Irish railway system. For one thing they would have to change the track gauge or the trains would literally fall between the rails at Larne. Furthermore the Carlisle to Stranraer would have to be kept open or reopened or the trains from the North of England would have to take a long detour via Glasgow.

It would have to be paid for by the Government because as you wrote it would never make its money back via the tolls. However, I think that Governments should pay for things the private sector won't do on the grounds that they are in the national interest.
 
Hard to see a pod post 1900 keeping Ireland in the UK.

The 12% corporate tax in the republic of Ireland that attracted so many American firms would not have happened with Ireland in the UK. So the tech boom of the 1980s on wards might not have happened.

With Ireland in the UK Irish cities would have taken a lot of damaged during the Blitz.

I am sure the English fishing boat would be happy to have access to Irish waters for fishing.
 
Top