Central Bank forecasts lower economic growth and fewer homes built in coming years
Domestic economic growth is expected to slow to around 2 per cent this year and next if the United States hits European Union exports with a 20 per cent tariff, and could fall much more steeply if a deeper trade war follows, the Central Bank of Ireland said.
The Republic is among the countries most exposed to US president Donald Trump's sweeping economic policies, with a significant proportion of employment, tax receipts and exports dependent on a cluster of mainly tech and pharmaceutical multinationals.
Advertisement
The Central Bank also downgraded its forecasts for new home completions in the near term.
It predicted completions would increase to 32,500, 37,500 and 41,500 in 2025, 2026 and 2027 respectively but this represents a downward revision on its previous forecast in March.
The downgrade was driven by a fall-off in completions and commencements in the first quarter of this year, the bank said.
The Central Bank cut its estimate for 2025 modified domestic demand (MDD) – its preferred gauge of economic performance – to 2 per cent from the 2.7 per cent estimated in March and its 2026 forecast to 2.1 per cent from 2.5 per cent due to the uncertainty weighing on investment.
Advertisement
That was broadly in line with recent Department of Finance forecasts. As a member of the EU, Ireland faces tariffs of 10 per cent on around a quarter of its exports that could rise to 20 per cenr after a 90-day US pause ends on July 8th.
The Central Bank said MDD would fall to just 0.8 per cent this year and 1 per cent in 2026 in an adverse scenario where a 20 per cent tariff is extended to all goods, taking in key sectors for Ireland such as pharma and semiconductors, and the EU retaliates with tariffs.
The Republic's booming corporate tax revenues, which have risen almost seven-fold over the last decade, could be a major vulnerability in that scenario as most of the tax is paid by US multinationals.
Ireland
Housing target of 41,000 'not realistic', Minister...
Read More
The Central Bank said projected big budget surpluses could turn into a deficit of 4 per cent of national income or €17.7 billion by 2030 if the adverse economic scenario is accompanied by a loss of the recent windfall corporate tax receipts and a 20 per cent fall in foreign multinational investment.
Advertisement
"This is a severe scenario but it is not the extreme scenario where you would see investment leave the State," Central Bank director of economics Robert Kelly said on Thursday.
The bank also estimated that gross domestic product – which officials disregard due to the way multinationals distort the data – would jump eight-fold to 9.7 per cent this year due to a surge in exports to the US that data suggests was driven chiefly by ingredients used in weight-loss and diabetes drugs.
Some US drugmakers with a presence in Ireland have reported stocking up ahead of threatened tariffs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Can Starmer afford to join Trump in an open-ended war?
In taking so long to respond to what is now a full-on war between Israel and Iran, Donald Trump has done the UK's prime minister a big favour. A US decision on the side of direct military intervention would present Keir Starmer with the greatest quandary yet of his year at No 10 – whether to offer UK support, and if so, how much, in what form, and for how long. The prime minister has already warned against any action that would 'ramp up the situation', that 'cooling tensions' and 'de-escalation is the priority' – and that, despite 'grave concerns' about the threat of Iran's nuclear programme, the British government is 'urging all parties to show restraint and return to diplomacy'. While Trump ponders on whether to join Israeli strikes on Iran, there is, in the words of the prime minister's official spokesman, a 'real risk of escalation'. And yet the longer the US president takes to make up his mind, the longer Starmer has to weigh up the pros and cons of the UK following its closest ally into a war that could engulf the whole of the Middle East. And the only really good option from London's perspective would be if Trump decided to keep the US, officially at least, on the sidelines. Any direct military intervention, and the UK, one way or another, has to choose. In essence, this is the dilemma that has long lurked somewhere in the nexus between the UK's departure from the European Union and the election of Donald Trump to a second term. These two developments left the UK straddled awkwardly mid-Atlantic, between an EU it no longer belongs to and a US out of sympathy with Europe on practically everything, from tariffs to collective security. Now may be the moment of truth. Were the US to decide to intervene, the UK could just about persist in its current holding pattern and do no more. That would mean repeated (vain) calls for de-escalation; new warnings to hard-pressed consumers about higher energy prices (with the blame now pinned on Iran, rather than Russia), more travel bans and terrorist alerts. The UK might also provide a much-needed channel to Tehran, given that David Lammy has, so far, kept up communications with his Iranian counterpart. Going some way, but not the whole way, to support the US – by offering facilities at UK bases in, say, Cyprus, could, however, present risks, including the risk of reprisals from Iran. The danger may be less now, given what appears to be Iran's debilitated state from Israeli air strikes. But the UK's early and categorical denial that the US had used Cyprus as a transit point for the extra air power it sent to the region showed that London clearly understood the potential risk. Not offering the US direct, or even partial, military support, however, could have costs of its own. Trump is regarded as prizing loyalty above almost anything else. Where would a passive UK stance leave the 'special relationship'? Might Trump re-consider the tariff concessions he has agreed for the UK? Might the US scale back intelligence cooperation (as it threatened over the UK's telecoms ties to China)? Might the UK lose what it sees as its privileged position in Washington to, say, Germany, whose new chancellor Friedrich Merz seemed to be auditioning for leader of Europe during his recent visit to the White House and been more forthright in support of Israel's action than Starmer? On the other hand, the balance between aiding and not aiding the United States in a new war may be finer than it may look from this single, close, vantage point. How special is that special relationship? Harold Wilson managed to keep Britain out of Vietnam without undue, long-term damage. Contrast this with Tony Blair's near-unconditional support for the US in Iraq. This bought exactly how much political capital for him or his government in Washington over the longer term? As for the damage to the domestic reputation of the UK intelligence services and the influence of the UK in the Middle East, that has been huge and lasting. At the time, however, Blair's argument was not just about security – destroying the supposed threat from Iraq's (as it turned out, non-existent) chemical weapon – but also about principle. He, like George W. Bush, was seduced by the promise of the 'freedom' and 'democracy' that were forecast to follow 'regime change', which may also be an objective of Israel's war on Iran. It is hard to believe that Starmer and Labour's leading lights today could be similarly seduced, given the experience not only of Iraq, but of Libya and Afghanistan, and of David Cameron's narrowly lost vote in Parliament over intervention in Syria. But might the current Parliament vote to support a UK military intervention on other grounds, such as the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran or the view that Israel's very existence is threatened? That cannot be excluded. But the gulf that would then be exposed between MPs voting to put the UK in harm's way for the sake of Israel, and the weight of public opinion that condemns Israel because of Gaza, could present Starmer with big political difficulties, despite Labour's majority. A parliamentary debate could also open up the bigger picture. One of the arguments that raged during my childhood was whether the UK should keep a military presence 'east of Suez'. The upshot was that it sort of did, and it sort of didn't, but the UK's interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq had the effect of deciding the issue to this day. As it happens, the Israel-Iran war has erupted barely two weeks after the government published its Strategic Defence Review, which identified Russia as the biggest threat facing the country, recommending a 'Nato-first' policy and higher defence spending to address this threat. There was no mention of the UK becoming embroiled in a new and potentially open-ended war in the Middle East. With its self-accepted status as a medium-sized power, a pared-back military, and capabilities increasingly focused on Russia, the UK is likely to find its resources severely stretched in the event that Starmer decided in favour of actively helping the US in the Middle East. However the Israel-Iran war ends, the 'east of Suez' discussion needs to be re-opened, with the UK's present capacity and priorities in mind. In the meantime, the difficulty for Trump should not be minimised. He campaigned on a pledge to keep the US out of far-away, forever wars, and prides himself on the – correct – fact that the US avoided any new wars in his first term. He is clearly in two minds about Israel and Iran. Long, Starmer and his government must hope, may his indecision continue.
Sky News
11 minutes ago
- Sky News
Israel-Iran live: Trump responds to reports of attack plan - as Iran denies striking hospital
Donald Trump has rubbished reports he approved attack plans on Iran but is holding back on the final order. Meanwhile, Iran has denied attacking an Israeli hospital where dozens have been wounded. Follow the latest and listen to The World as you scroll.
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's main political group on collision course with Germany over budget increase demands
BRUSSELS, June 19 (Reuters) - The European Union's next long-term budget must be bigger than the current one, the main political group in the European Parliament said, putting itself on a collision course with the biggest contributor Germany, which does not want any increase. The centre-right European People's Party, with 188 deputies in the 720-seat parliament, is the EU's biggest political grouping and its support will be crucial for a deal on the EU's 2028-2034 budget, which pays for joint EU policies. For decades, the budget, called the Multiannual Financial Framework, has been around 1% of EU gross national income, now about 1.2 trillion euros ($1.38 trillion) over seven years. "New priorities require new own resources to cover both debt repayments and the Union's increasing spending needs. We cannot do more with less," said Siegfried Muresan, who is the vice-chairman of the party and a negotiator for the next EU budget. The EU budget pays to equalise standards of living across the 27-nation bloc, support farmers, research and development, innovation, border management and climate action. But governments also want it to also help with security and defence and to strengthen Europe's industrial base to compete more effectively with China and the United States in leadership in clean and digital technologies. "The EU budget has a key role in making Europe safer. We need a more ambitious allocation for security and defence. Therefore, a moderate, limited increase of the budget is unavoidable," Muresan said. Germany, the budget's biggest net contributor, does not want to pay more into the common European pot. "There is no basis for increasing the ... (EU budget) volume relative to Gross National Income," a German document spelling out Berlin's position showed. Apart from national contributions, which make up the bulk of EU budget revenues, it also gets money from "own resources" - revenues from a share of the Value Added Tax collected by governments, from tariffs and national contributions based on the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste generated by a member state. There is discussion on expanding such dedicated sources of revenue to boost EU income, especially as a way to repay the hundreds of billions of euros the EU jointly borrowed to restart its economy after the COVID pandemic. Germany has left the door open to increasing EU budget revenues in this way. "The Federal Government will ... constructively examine the Commission's proposals in this regard, so that ... repayments will not have to be made at the expense of the regular EU budget," the German government paper said. The European People's Party also pushed back at ideas that the next EU budget should link disbursements to an EU country reaching reform milestones and targets, as is the case in the EU post-COVID Recovery Fund. "Local and regional authorities and other beneficiaries cannot be penalised or held accountable for reforms that are not implemented at the national level," the Party said in a statement. The Party also said it did not want further centralisation of spending plans at government level. "Regional and local authorities know better the needs and specificities on the ground." ($1 = 0.8714 euros)
