Irish Economy grew by 26.3% in 2015 | Hacker News Reader

Irish Economy grew by 26.3% in 2015

irishtimes.com

106 pointss_dev106 comments

The article does a pretty good job of explaining how they reached that figure. Massive financial manoeuvres involved in aircraft leasing industry. On a global level Ireland is the place for aircraft leasing.

GDP and GNP are similar for most countries but Ireland is a small open and agile economy with a huge presence of foreign multinationals. Profits of these companies are often declared in Ireland but repatriated back to their host countries. Hence the disparity between the two figures.

Ireland also entered a harsh recession from 2008 to 2014 so an element here is also simply making up for lost ground.

This comes at a time when Ireland is bracing itself for Brexit. Ireland is massive trading partner of the UK. Ireland buys a similar amount from the UK as France for example.

The strategy seems twofold - get the EU to empathise with Ireland so that the UK doesn't have to got though a hard exit and introduce a hard border. While also trying to rob all the companies looking to relocate to an EU location from London.

For me whats interesting so much value being added to the Irish economy with relatively little actually coming from construction. Something Ireland was little too dependant on.

>> "so that the UK doesn't have to got though a hard exit and introduce a hard border"

I don't see anyway around the hard border. If border EU countries are required to protect their border as I've been lead to believe then Ireland now has to do that unless UK excepts freedom of movement.

I don't see anyway around the hard border. If border EU countries are required to protect their border...

Whatever happens with Brexit, it's very unlikely there'll be a "hard border" between the UK and ROI. The UK and ROI have a common travel area agreement that predates, and does not depend on, the EU.

The ROI, like the UK, is not part of the Schengen agreement area and so is outside the "EU border" anyway. It's very difficult to imagine a scenario where Ireland would want to give up the CTA in favour of Schengen, even given the circumstances of Brexit.

Even if the UK fails to negotiate full free market access or a free trade agreement with the EU, any restrictions would almost certainly relate to services, not the free movement of goods.

The problem isn't Schengen: the problem is freedom of movement. These are two different things, even if people confuse them all the time. If there's no freedom of movement between the UK and the EU, then the Common Travel Area is essentially dead, regardless of whether or not the UK and Ireland are in Schengen. This has massive knock-on effects on NI: the Good Friday Agreement is predicated on there being no hard border between the North and South.

Would the UK want a hard border? Otherwise any EU citizen could travel to Ireland. Walk across the border, and hence enter UK without any checks. If you get deported from the UK, just walk back across the border. etc. Would the UK accept that?

Additionally, the EU likely wouldn't want the UK to have no border with ROI. Otherwise you could simply fly from (say) Romania to Dublin, travel up to Belfast, and move freely within the UK from there. This would create further tensions between the UK and EU.

There's precedent of sorts for this though. Currently a non-EU citizen with a visa to Ireland still needs a visa to travel to the UK. This could be policed in the same way as that case.

any EU citizen could travel to Ireland. Walk across the border, and hence enter UK without any checks.

Yes, but remember: Ireland is not part of the Schengen area. EU citizens (along with everyone else) go through border checks when entering Ireland from outside the common travel area.

That information may be shared with the UK as part of the common travel area agreement, so it doesn't make a difference whether someone enters the common travel area in Ireland or in the UK.

And of course, being allowed to enter a country (whether checked or not) does not necessarily mean you have the right to reside there and seek employment.

what would most likely happen is what happened during WW2 and that is border controls between NI and the UK mainland

The political fallout from that was manageable during WW2, but now, not so much. Unionists and Loyalists would have a fit at even the suggestion of border controls between NI and GB.

That would be even less popular than border controls between Alaska and/or Hawaii and the continental US.

If the UK leaves the EU, and a European person (who is allowed to live in Ireland, but not in the UK) travels to Ireland, what is to stop them illegally travelling to the UK without a hard border?

The EU guarantees the freedom of movement in the sense that any EU citizen can go and live in another EU country. It does not guarantee that people can cross borders without any border control.

The Schengen area, on the other hand, guarantees that people can move across borders without border control. Border control is done at the Schengen area borders, whether that be land borders, sea ports, or airports.

A country such as the UK can continue to be part of the Schengen area without being part of the EU. So anyone can fly into Ireland, where the border checks would be carried out.

From there, the person could freely cross the border to the UK, but they would not have the right to live and work there. In order to do so (legally), they would have to apply for a UK visa and work permit.

However, at the moment neither Ireland nor the UK participate in the Schengen area, so border checks will be conducted according to existing agreements between the UK and Ireland. From what I understand, if a person can freely enter Ireland, they can freely enter Northern Ireland. However, from what I hear, there are additional checks when traveling between Northern Ireland and the UK, so the UK can further control who comes from Northern Ireland.

> A country such as the UK can continue to be part of the Schengen area without being part of the EU

UK's not in Schengen.

What stopped a French person getting a visa to visit Ireland pre-EU membership and then walking across the border?

Or I mean, Irish citizenship rules are very lax re: US citizens of Irish descent in particular, what was to stop them migrating to the UK en masse while we were in the EU?

>Whatever happens with Brexit, it's very unlikely there'll be a "hard border" between the UK and ROI. The UK and ROI have a common travel area agreement that predates, and does not depend on, the EU.

Predate isn't a synonym for supersede. Ireland gave up her sovereignty to make individual trade/free movement deals upon entering the EU. In fact the whole point of the EU is that we operate as an economic bloc.

EU law and policy does supersede any arrangements made between Ireland the UK before EU membership.

The CTA thing gets trotted out regularly by professional journalists and career politicians in Ireland but it's mistake to think the CTA has any real power over the EU.

Rumour has it the UK will likely go for EEA membership after invoking article 50. This isn't foregone conclusion but a possibility and some would say likely outcome.

UK will have to accept EU migration and contribute to EU purse but doesn't have a seat at the table making the whole referendum a fruitless pursuit that cost the UK political clout.

Conversely the Germans may see Brexit as a threat to the EU (particularly if the UK does well outside the EU) and may veto the UK joining the EEA. The UK performing poorly outside the EU would act as a disincentive to other members who may be weighing up leaving.

Another alternative to the hard border between N.Ireland and Ireland is a hard border between N.Ireland and the rest of the UK. Though some saying having to use a passport to travel within your own country defeats the purpose of the country.

I personally doubt that the UK will go for EEA membership.

The Leave campaign made it crystal clear their rationale and the most notable were not allowing EU immigration and not giving money to the EU. For the Tory government to ignore the mandate would be politically catastrophic and would result in the same problems from the right e.g UKIP that caused this whole mess to begin with.

It seems more likely that there will be a whole raft of specific agreements over the coming decades that will facilitate a more constructive EU-UK relationship.

The leave campaign made nothing clear and reneged immediately on the promises it had made. Half of them said we would remain in the single market and keep freedom of movement and others said we wouldn't have either. There were no consistent demands from leave. Even leave voters who were interviewed afterwards said they wanted to limit the movement of people from Syria and Afghanistan not the movement of people from Europe, showing not only did they not understand what they voted for their desired outcome was never possible anyway.

None of the leave campaign are in a position of power so what they wanted, whatever it was, is not an issue.

I could imagine a situation where we leave the EU and join the EEA on a "temporary" measure, giving us time to negotiate trade deals with other countries, and then when we're ready we will leave the EEA.

For quite some time during the Troubles there was a defacto hard border between N. Ireland and everywhere else. If you wanted to drive across the border, fly to anywhere in the UK, or catch the ferry you had to present photo ID of some kind.

I visited the Republic of Ireland a few times in the early 90's (circa 91-92, long before the peace talks and the Good Friday agreement, certainly well before the British army patrolled wearing berets instead of helmets). I travelled by ferry with my car from Scotland (Stranraer) to Belfast (Northern Ireland) and was never, upon boarding or disembarking the ferry, asked to show any ID (I didn't even have a passport back then, all I had was a paper driver's license issued prior to the photo version you get now).

The only place we were stopped was at the British army checkpoint at Newry. Your car entered a concrete "pen" made up of movable concrete barriers. They pointed remote controlled cameras at the occupants and checked your license plate. If all was well you got a green light and drove on your way, again no id required. If you were about to have a bad day you got a red light and an arrow instructing you to drive into a holding area (or a different barrier operated memory is vague on the details) for further checks.

The border with the Republic (on the old road, the R132 now) was unguarded, you just drove on into "the south".

Nevermind the premise it's built on is a bit of an insult to N.Ireland "Well we can let people into NI but not the REAL UK where we have jobs and the like".

If an EU person flies to Dublin, walks across the border to Newry, and lives a full life there, has UK immigration policy failed?

Though some saying having to use a passport to travel within your own country defeats the purpose of the country.

There are some border controls between Ireland including Northern Ireland and the UK now. If you look out of place, you should be prepared to be challenged.

Where is that? My experience has been that flying to Ireland to the UK presents no border control whatsoever, though from London to Dublin I do have to present a passport (as a non-EU citizen) since Dublin routes everyone through border control. I believe that has more to do with it being impractical to set up a domestic terminal.

Interestingly, an Irish or UK citizen born in the British Isles need only convince the immigration officer of their bona fides, even without a passport.

There are currently no border controls between Ireland and N.Ireland or the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland%E2%80%93Un...

Thanks for the Wikipedia source.

Here is the law:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/277/made/en/print

Checks by air and sea are authorized and implemented. The UK Border Force also performs spot inspections.

Given the EU is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement (EEA membership would preserve freedom of movement, which is essential to the GFA), if the UK government wanted EEA membership and the Germans vetoed it, they could likely throw that in their face.

This is going to be a precedent as all EEA members are either EU or EFTA members and UK will be neither.

Veto is a very powerful instrument, only the initial members have it.

The UK has a similar veto which gives it a powerful negotiating tool - a single member can prevent every decision by vetoing it.

The Germans could veto but the UK can veto everything and delay leaving till it gets most of what it wants - effectively halting the EU.

Any attempts to circumvent veto can be vetoed.

The UK leaves the EU 24 months after the negotiations start, unless the parties decide on a different date. If anyone wants to play the veto game, they can, for up to 23½ months.

So you're saying the UK shouldn't invoke article 50 and ignore the referendum keep EU membership and just veto everything thereafter?

Or if it does invoke article 50 how does it plan on keeping this veto power after the two year negotiating window expires?

I am not advocating any policy but OP brought up veto, the veto only belongs to EU founders not all members.

Few discussions about the outcome of negotiations mention veto, a blunt instrument the UK has often employed in the past.

The referendum doesn't mention a mechanism or timescale.

Norway (not-EU) borders Sweden and Finland (EU) and have an open border agreement. But of course it also has freedom of movement for EUians.

Northern Ireland should just pull out of the UK already and the whole island can return to being Ireland, and solve the problem with land borders.

> Northern Ireland should just pull out of the UK already and the whole island can return to being Ireland, and solve the problem with land borders.

This idea wouldn't be as simple as it sounds if you account for the sociopolitical context. Today actually is a perfectly timed example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth#Controversies_and_...

There isn't a majority in either Northern Ireland nor the Republic for that to happen.

As an Irishman, I've always thought even of the nationalists up north as a different breed; their mentality is defined by what they're in opposition to. Toxic politics; everything is looking inward rather than forward.

> their mentality is defined by what they're in opposition to

A lot of the Irish define themselves, historically, in terms of opposition to the British.

The irish are more secure in their identity than the welsh or scots in my experience

I'm quite secure in my identity as a Scot and secondarily as a European. But yes, there are an awful lot of "proud Scot, but..." types; an affectation also known as the "Scottish Cringe".

That's a whole other kettle of fish :-D

Apart from being untrue, there is an affinity with the Welsh & Scots...

What does this even mean? "define themselves, historically". The nation, certainly but you are conflating disparate notions to project a stereotype.

Explain why the Irish are the largest naturalised community inside the UK?

conflating disparate notions?

If you put away the thesaurus, maybe it'd be easier to figure out what you're saying.

Of what relevance is Wales and Scotland, when the comparison was specifically between NI and ROI? Or indeed, what naturalisation has to do with with it?

op stated "A lot of the Irish define themselves, historically, in terms of opposition to the British."

Maybe you should read the thread before injecting your opinion.

What do you think "British" (/Britain) means? What do you think 'defining oneself historically' means, if anything? Are you Irish?

by op, do you mean my post? I'm accusing you of using unnecessarily obscure wording.

There are many ways to define oneself as an individual. I'm talking about how many Irish see their own country from a historical perspective.

If you doubted that even meant anything, then how could you conclude that I was "project[ing] a stereotype"?

so, you're not Irish then?

There are many ways to define oneself. "Defining oneself historically" is something Americans in South Boston do.

I'm not sure what you find confusing about "op stated "A lot of the Irish define themselves, historically, in terms of opposition to the British.""

The Irish aren't, never have been, opposed to Britain, Great Britain & North Ireland nor the United Kingdom.

Why do you care to know if I'm Irish? An ad-hom in the making?

I've clarified above what I mean by "historically" - Do you have anything to add to this in the context of the post I was replying to?

> I'm not sure what you find confusing about "op stated"

I'm confused because by 'op' you seem to be referring to me...

> The Irish aren't, never have been, opposed to Britain, Great Britain & North Ireland nor the United Kingdom

"The Easter Rising (Irish: Éirí Amach na Cásca),[2]

also known as the Easter Rebellion, was an armed insurrection in Ireland during Easter Week,

April 1916. The Rising was launched by Irish republicans to end British rule in Ireland

and establish an independent Irish Republic while the United Kingdom was heavily engaged

in World War I. It was the most significant uprising in Ireland since the rebellion of 1798,

and the first armed action of the Irish revolutionary period."

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising

You're conflating 'The British' with British Rule. Two very very different things.

also, no need to educate me on my history my friend. I understand it deeply but I'm not defined by it. As are the vast majority of my countrymen.

Whatever. Did you have a point after all?

> Whatever. Did you have a point after all?

Ahh, when you run out of ideas but can't stop talking. Nice.

You're right, I've no more ideas on what your point might be.

you can't stop, can you!

My point is pretty clear. The Irish don't hate the "british" because of historical matters. As much as you'd like to think otherwise.

Who said 'hate'? Now you'r just making stuff up.

By 'point' I mean what it has to do with the context of the thread: A comparison of mentalities between NI and ROI.

I'll respond as I like TYVM.

again, you're out of context... ""A lot of the Irish define themselves, historically, in terms of opposition to the British." "

you really can't stop, can you?

You raised you objection, then failed to add any substance to it other than communicating that you disagree. No point, no new context.

Again, I'll reply as I like. Step off as you like.

> A lot of the Irish define themselves, historically, in terms of opposition to the British.

I think any opposition that existed was to British military _occupation_ and economic exploitation of Ireland, not opposition to the British per se.

In addition Irish identity is much richer and deeper than simply opposing something or someone. I recommend a brief dip into the rich literature and music of the island so that you don't make this embarrassing error again.

> so that you don't make this embarrassing error again.

I really don't think that condescending tone was needed, regardless of parent's knowledge of the subject matter at hand, we're above that here.

When the OP's assertion was that Irish identity is:

1) nothing more than being opposition 2) inherently racist (focussed on being anti another ethnicity)

then I will take your rebuke and downvote as evidence of either a lack of thought or a deliberate attempt to insult.

Stick to Scotland friend. You may actually know something about it.

> inherently racist

You're just throwing around that accusation to justify bad behavior. It's easy to attach any label when you have such loose definitions ("anti" "ethnicity").

> nothing more than being opposition

You added "nothing more", which plays the same role as the "just" in "just a theory" - turning a statement in context into a straw-man.

> then I will take your rebuke and downvote as evidence of either a lack of thought or a deliberate attempt to insult

Isn't that convenient. I take the lack of content in your post as evidence of the same.

> Stick to Scotland friend. You may actually know something about it.

Sticking with the condescension, eh?

If you know something about this topic, why not show us?

> Irish identity is much richer and deeper

In context of why I made such a comparison: Is NI history not deep?

> so that you don't make this embarrassing error again

You missed the point, so please don't pile smugness on top of it.

> As an Irishman, I've always thought even of the nationalists up north as a different breed; their mentality is defined by what they're in opposition to. Toxic politics; everything is looking inward rather than forward.

This is very true. It might not be true everywhere but many of us find the Northern Irish to be a different breed. I can see the NI identity potentially resolving itself into a separate country proper.

To be honest this may go back much further than any English/Irish conflict. I remember reading in a historical fiction derived from the Annals of the Four Masters about Brian Boru becoming the High King and the clear differences observed between Southerners and Ulster, and that's over a thousand years ago.

To non-Irish-folk: Yes, just like the North in Game of Thrones. The English, Scots and Irish alone have enough intrigue and violence to sate even George R.R. Martin!

Here's a tale from my clan that sounded quite GOT-like. Irish people are known for using colourful metaphors and this time it caught up with one of them.

Once upon a time a man was raiding cattle. Cows were money in those days and 'accidentally' collecting them from the valley of your neighbours was more or less irresistible for many a ruffian.

The cattle raider passed into the Forest with cow in tow to escape from any pursuers. It is ancient forest with great big tree trunks and everything to be seen is an ocean of green, maybe something like this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/aapamire/4371421987/in/photost...

Newly confident in his new possession the thief comes to a glen, it is a long, deep, narrow valley. As soon as the cow makes an appearance the raider is surprised. He flees but is pinioned to the floor. Unbeknown to him, my relatives had been waiting for him at the other side of it.

"No!" he cries, "Sure it is only a head of cattle I were borrowing and don't I have wife and child to feed or they shall go hungry this night. God forgive me! My wife will be so angry if I don't have my hand on the door by midnight. I swore an oath I'd be back this evening! Please show a man mercy!"

My relative replied: "By God this is serious! Sure you can not be breaking oaths!"

So they took him back to his cottage and nailed his hand to its door.

>There isn't a majority in either Northern Ireland nor the Republic for that to happen.

Here is the opinions of the Irish and Northern Irish people on the issue of unity within the past year: http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/1104/739633-prime-time...

Given that Northern Ireland is now majority Catholic I would imagine Catholic unionists would be very against Brexit and many Don't Knows are now in the UI camp. I don't know what the new figures would be but I'll love to seem more polling on this post Brexit referendum.

Plus the subsidies. For a very long time, and even now, NI is/was not as poor as RoI

We've had quite a lot of that in the rest of the UK as well.

The whole island of Ireland was never an independent state. Partition was a condition of the Independence treaty. Ireland as a political entity has only ever been the 26 counties. According to this study from 2013, only 15% of the population want a United Ireland. This may have been affected by the South's relative economic problems at that point, but as far as I know, there has never been a majority in favour of a united Ireland in the North.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2013/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2....

Well, prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Ireland (which, for the gallery, was essentially an Anglo-Norman puppet state of the Kingdom of England and Wales), Ireland was essentially a independent state, except without any kind of strong central government (though there were repeated attempts to turn the largely ceremonial high-kingship into one), but held together by a shared culture and legal system: a nation, but not a state. I guess the closest modern example would be Somalia.

It was 32 united counties from 1800 to 1920.

No, after the act of Union it was part of the United Kingdom of Ireland and Great Britain, ruled by the British crown and Westminster. Prior to that it was actually a distinct political entity (The Kingdom of Ireland) with its own parliament in Dublin, but ruled by the British crown.

Ok it wasn't independent but my point was that it was united.

sorry, my first comment was inaccurate, Ireland was a dependent but united political entity prior to the Act of Union in 1801. I've corrected it now.

Yes - but it was part of the UK then at the time - not an independent state an only partly had its own parliament during that time.

>> Northern Ireland should just pull out of the UK already and the whole island can return to being Ireland

From what I recall, NI is not in a position to fund itself without UK assistance. Ireland would have to foot that.

The bigger issue is that such a move (a united Ireland) would spark a new round of terrorism and instability.

OK I don't disagree that an independent NI is a slightly strange proposition that may make less sense and have less support than other European independence movements. However people frequently tout the "<region> runs at a deficit, therefore it cannot be independent" argument. Basically the vast majority of the developed world runs a deficit including the two countries we're talking about here (UK and Ireland) and large diverse non-EU economies (USA, Japan, France) as well as medium-to-small Western/Northern European countries (Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Luxembourg) which are otherwise considered successful or desirable. There's probably very good arguments to be made either way but I don't think this is one of them.

> However people frequently tout the "<region> runs at a deficit, therefore it cannot be independent" argument.

An argument frequently trumpeted by the No campaign in 2014 during the Scottish Independence debate with their unionist press lackeys trotting out the same tired old "too wee, too poor, too stupid" articles that were debunked time and time again.

Deficits aside, economically speaking. these people have no imagination. Who's to say Scotland would continue with the same ruinous economic policies as implemented by Westminster, our priorities are somewhat different.

It is my understanding that a large percentage of NI are employed in the UK civil service. The ROI is simply not in a position to provide the same, so they would become unemployed. Its not so much that it does or doesn't run at a deficit, its that it would be a major cost to ROI when ROI already is still dealing with its own financial problems and people are already unhappy about the additional taxes and charges the government keep trying to introduce.

There has been much talk of a big cut in that assistance - it is being seriously discussed now. Plus the setback in UI and cross-border job opportunities by a hard border. Combined, this will flame hardline republican sentiment (left of Sinn Fein), as well as loyalist discontent with setbacks. This would cause increased military presence from England, which would add more fuel to the flames, and things could easily spiral back into violence once again. Historically, these things tend to flame up every few decades in Ireland.

From a British perspective - at least they'd be angry at someone that wasn't us?

Once Scotland goes, NI should be a near certainty to follow - leaving us and probably Wales (who seem to have a better grasp on the costs of needing to balance the books alone).

> Wales (who seem to have a better grasp on the costs of needing to balance the books alone).

Ahem. Wales is a net beneficiary of the EU to the tune of hundred of millions of pounds per year and they voted for Brexit. Something tells me the Tories in Westminster won't exactly be tripping over themselves to send a ton of more cash to the valleys with a potential economic downturn on the horizon due to Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/wales-...

Alternatively, ROI should accept NI too?

NI is actually a pretty expensive place to run.

> If border EU countries are required to protect their border as I've been lead to believe

I think that's what parent means. That the EU not force Ireland to protect the border, that they make an exception with UK.

>Ireland has to do that unless UK accepts freedom of movement No? Ireland can do whatever the EU wants, independently of whether UK accepts or does not accept freedom of movement.

One way is a united Ireland. Which is a whole other can of worms.

Are they not just stealing from other taxpayers by being "small and nimble" in providing a tax arbitrage in a world where money flows unchecked?

That's like saying I'm stealing your dating options by being better looking than you, or your medals by running faster.

No it's like saying I'm going to eat your food but it's ok because it's at my house even though I've just been round your house and taken it.

Real work is done in one location using real infrastructure then real tax is avoided using tax loopholes and countries who want a higher standard of living than their value added labour allows.

And it may grow even more when some/many US subsidiaries in UK will move to Ireland after Brexit (english speaking country in EU is attracting many US companies)...

Ireland can definitely capitalise on this calamity and there is no doubting how good the IDA are at what they do. What could make it a major success story is if the Dept of Finance get their act together and finally listen to what the investment community has been telling them for years re competitiveness.

As the article hinted, there's a lot to consider when reaching the headline figure. Here's the associated grain of salt: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/analysis-crazy-gr...

Seeing a growth number like 26.3% is like seeing a sprinter run the 100m in 9.43s. At first you're impressed, and then you immediately wonder what PEDs they're taking.

Does anyone have an idea of how this may impacting the job market for Developers/Engineers? I've been interested in potentially moving to Ireland for some time, but have held off because it was my understanding that work was much harder to come by (vs. North American standards).

I help mod a sub reddit called /r/DevelEire for Irish software developers. Might be a good place to check out if you're seriously considering it.

1. A fair number of companies to relocate to Dublin post Brexit.

2. Large indigenous growth coming from Irish startups. Slowly the scene has been building and maturing for years.

3. You'll have to take a 50% wage cut if you come to Ireland. American software developers are paid approx 2x their Irish counterparts.

OTOH, even Dublin is vastly cheaper than SV, with an excellent quality of life.

Yes, lower salary but lower cost of living. Dublin is expensive by Irish standards, but its not SV-expensive. If you work somewhere that doesn't require you to live in Dublin or Cork, then you can cut costs drastically (I live in the midlands in a 3 bedroom house and it costs me about 60% of a one-bed apartment in Dublin).

I made this move. I don't regret it in the least. What other people have written is true:

* Lower (but not atrocious) salaray * Lower cost of living (even during the present rent crisis it's nowhere near as bad as the bay) * (Subjective) more relaxed lifestyle. * Gorgeous summers * Challenging winters if you like sun. (I don't really, and even I get sick of it around Jan/Feb)

Find info in my profile if you want to ask questions.

I think I should be able to handle the winters, I currently live in Alberta Canada. Thanks for your response, it's definitely encouraging.

Check out Paul Krugman's latest input on these numbers. In his recent tweet he points out that a lot of this growth is from technology companies transferring their IP assets or patents to Ireland. Which shouldn't be added to GDP.

Tax evasion by American Tech companies.

If it was that much of a problem for America they could change their rules.

If Ireland wishes to make themselves a tax haven, then the US has very little influence over that.

But for anyone to claim that Ireland would experience this sort of growth without being the go-to tax avoidance location for the likes of Google, Apple, Facebook and fill in the blank--is ridiculous on its face. Through the phenomenon of "income stripping" these tech companies essentially gift their IP to their Irish subsidiaries and then the subsidiary charges the parent company to use that IP, thereby stripping the parent company's earnings from the US--where the companies are actually located--to these tax havens.

In case you've been living under a rock you would know that Facebook has been fighting a lawsuit from the US treasury since 2010 over this exact situation.

It's pretty likely the US will lower its corporate tax rate in the next decade to counter the big corporations that keep leaving. Most of Ireland's pharma industry consists of American-owned corporations that fled to Ireland solely for low corporate tax purposes. If you adjust the US corporate tax rate down, they can just as easily move back.

Hillary is almost without question going to win the election. She has proclaimed that her husband would have a star role in regards to improving the economy. One of Bill's core economic ideas is to flatten the US corporate tax rate - lower the rate and remove various subsidies and loopholes - to make the US far more competitive with the rest of the world. If the US matches Western Europe on corporate tax rates - Europe has the lowest corporate tax rates of any major economic region - it'll begin pulling very large amounts of capital and major corporations away from everyone else.

Lots of those tech companies employ a lot of local people. Tens of thousands of people.

And your point is? That work still needs doing, corporate profits are sky high. They can pay the tax and pay the workers.

Also much of the money passing through Ireland is simply for tax evasion not because actual business is taking place there. It's little more than a tax haven.

Here is an example of all those jobs created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich_(tax_avoidance)

Dutch Sandwich and Double Irish has been discontinued. It will be completely finished by 2020. To suggest it's still going in full swing is a little disingenuous as the info by itself is a little outdated. That applies to a limited number of companies.

I think his point was that Ireland tends to tax the workers rather than the companies. So those companies are still a benefit to the country.

Yes but they are allowing those companies to avoid tax in the countries where the labour is being done.

Lucky for them the UK is also getting desperate and instead of having it's own work is going to "attract" companies with lower corporation tax.

Race you to the bottom.

The Irish economy was carefully constructed around the 12.5% rate for decades -- the UK is foolish if it thinks this new 15% rate will work for it and can just copy it to emulate the success Ireland has seen from its own rate.

The low rate works if you're a small economy with access to a much larger economy. With Brexit looming and given the size of the UK it doesn't fit either of these important criteria for the strategy to work.

I think Osborne lowered the rate the prevent an exodus of companies from the UK more than attract others to it.

My point is that it's not as bad as some of the channel islands which have one company director for every two people.

Yes, the jobs need to be done, but those jobs might not be done in Ireland. Hence the Irish government and society is willing to have a low tax rate in order to get those jobs in Ireland (as opposed to USA). People in the USA might want those jobs in USA, but people in Ireland want those jobs in Ireland.