Would Ireland have been better off remaining as part of the UK?

[Dinner]

Since today is the day that the Irish Free State was declared I thought this might be a good question to ask. Given the economic stagnation and lack of investment that Ireland experienced from independence to about 1990 do you think Ireland would be better off today if they had remained part of the UK?

[lord of the mark]

Re: Would Ireland have been better off remaining as part of the UK?

Originally posted by Oerdin
Since today is the day that the Irish Free State was declared I thought this might be a good question to ask. Given the economic stagnation and lack of investment that Ireland experienced from independence to about 1990 do you think Ireland would be better off today if they had remained part of the UK?

Cause like, there werent any parts of the UK that experienced economic stagnation in that period, eh?

Ireland is PROBABLY a more "progressive" it least till the 1960s or so, and is PROBABLY somewhat more prosperous. But they also lose alot more folks in WW2 than in OTL (though many Free State Irish did join UK units during WW2, IIUC), etc. Question of what you value more, I guess.

[Kuciwalker]

But they also lose alot more folks in WW2 than in OTL

But in OTL, just 3 IPC's and that would change.

[Heraclitus]

Its questionable whether they would have ever be able to set up the polices and draw the EU funds as efficiently to be able to become a Celtic tiger, their troops would be in Iraq now. And most of Ireland would be as stable as Northern Ireland is today.

The above assumes a timeline not too diferent from our own.

[Dauphin]

Maybe there would be less EU funding, but that is debatable on whether they would a) not get the funds and b) the funds made all the difference. Spain and Portugal got shedloads of money and aren't showing the gains Ireland got. The UK was the sickman of Europe for a long time but became an economic power again.

I think it makes little difference - assuming no separatist movement, except on cultural identity.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Maybe there would be less EU funding, but that is debatable on whether they would a) not get the funds and b) the funds made all the difference. Spain and Portugal got shedloads of money and aren't showing the gains Ireland got. The UK was the sickman of Europe for a long time but became an economic power again.

I think it makes little difference, except on cultural identity.

The difference is probably in policy, and the Irish couldn't make their own policy in such a case.

[Dauphin]

England funds Scotland, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't similarly fund Ireland.

Policy makes a difference, but whether it makes a positive or negative difference is so open to what-ifs that the parameters need to be narrowed down

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Heraclitus

Its questionable whether they would have ever be able to set up the polices and draw the EU funds as efficiently to be able to become a Celtic tiger

They would still, in 1990, have been a relativley low wage but English speaking place with market oriented polices and inside the EU. Im not sure how they wouldnt have boomed.

their troops would be in Iraq now

As part of the UK force. Not a huge force. What would total Irish casualties be? Considering folks are ignoring the like large casualties of WW2, why is this even worth mentioning?

. And most of Ireland would be as stable as Northern Ireland is today.

I assumed the POD had to be some kind of political settlement that makes remaining in UK viable. Otherwise the marginal economic questions become kind of pointless, as compared to how the politics plays out.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

As part of the UK force. Not a huge force. What would total Irish casualties be? Considering folks are ignoring the like large casualties of WW2, why is this even worth mentioning?

Actualy it isn't, good point. BTW Neutrality in WW2 was a very positve thing for any country that could pull it off.

[lord of the mark]

what nobody here is answering, is how does this effect UK politics? Do we still get a General Strike? Do we still get Tory dominance later? Neville Chamberlain? Though I guess that wasnt what the OP had in mind, he assumed "a timeline not too different from our own"

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
what nobody here is answering, is how does this effect UK politics? Do we still get a General Strike? Do we still get Tory dominance later? Neville Chamberlain? Though I guess that wasnt what the OP had in mind, he assumed "a timeline not too different from our own"

Do the Germans try to support an Irish uprisng a second time?

[CerberusIV]

The first issue is why the Irish fought for independence. Basically there was a strong "Home Rule" party in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Brits could have retained Ireland as a pretty much integral part of the UK by allowing an Irish parliament with control over domestic issues. They didn't, they screwed over the party supporting home rule and got a rebellion. The point is that the Brits were not really prepared to treat Ireland with anything but contempt and that would probably not have changed until the 1950's and the dissolution of the British Empire.

Before acceding to the the EU Ireland had a predominantly rural economy which would probably not have done much better or worse if Westminster had been in charge. Interestingly one of Irelands main exports was Irish whiskey to the US, a trade that was destroyed by prohibition. The British would not allow Ireland to trade freely within the British Empire so the whiskey industry here collapsed.

Joining the EU has worked very well for Ireland and they have used the money to fund the Celtic Tiger and position themselves as both an agricultural producer at the quality end of the market and a location for high tech industries, particularly IT and pharmaceuticals. It can be done, but Ireland seems to be the best example of how EU money can be used well (Greece is the opposite).

If Ireland had still been part of the UK this would not have been possible during the 1980's when the decisions that set off the economic boom of the 90's here were taken. The reason? Maggie. EU investment in the UK was not fully taken up during this period - mainly because Conservative governments were so busy preventing local government spending money and being anti-european that the money to match EU grants was not always available in the UK so available EU money wasn't taken.

From what I see first hand Ireland is better off having got out of Westminster's clutches. The only real problem is N Ireland which the British kept mostly to maintain a majority for the government in 1921 and have been trying quietly to get rid of ever since (Churchill offered De Valera NI if Eire would join the Allies in WW2).

[Deity Dude]

No.

[CerberusIV]

I don't think it was possible for Ireland to remain part of the UK - the history of English oppression here was too strong and the Irish were not going to stop trying. War weariness in the UK after WW1 simply gave them their best chance and they took it.

If Ireland had remained part of the UK it would probably be in the same economic position as Wales now - not too good. UK history would obviously be different. There would have been more manpower available to the British Army in the 20's and 30's and WW2. WW2 would have been easier in the Atlantic for the Allies with the use of Irish ports and airfields.

Politics in Westminster would have been different with more Irish MP's and peers but it's hard to say quite how that would have influenced British policy.

The UK would have got a slightly better deal from the EU since Ireland would have dragged the UK economic stats down at the time of joining. Overall I don't see any major differences in UK history, only Irish history - that's why the Irish left, because the UK did not really offer them anything.

[YYYH]

The status of Northern Ireland between 1920 and 2007 should be evidence enough that the answer is, "no," and they mucked the thing up in the first place by refusing the make the whole island Irish Free State. I know there are complex reasons with the Protestants in Ulster, but has there ever been a clearer example of the tail wagging the dog than Ulster politicians c. 1920?