Ireland would benefit if UK strikes favourable economic deal with US
Ireland would benefit if the UK strikes a favourable economic deal with the US, the Taoiseach has said.
Micheal Martin said while it was 'early days' regarding the prospect of such a deal, his general view was that anything that benefited the UK economy had a knock-on positive effect for Ireland.
Mr Martin was asked whether Ireland should have an input in any UK/US negotiation on an economic deal, given the trading arrangements that apply in Northern Ireland as a result of post-Brexit accords between the UK and EU.
Northern Ireland applies EU customs rules under arrangements designed to ensure an open land border on the island of Ireland.
At the close of his St Patrick's visit to the US, the Irish premier made clear that engagement on international trade policies was a matter for the EU, not for Ireland to act alone.
Asked whether he would be urging Sir Keir Starmer to ensure that the situation in Northern Ireland was properly factored into any deal that he might agree with President Donald Trump, Mr Martin said the UK Government was 'very conscious' of those issues.
'The situation in terms of UK/US is not clear yet,' he told reporters.
'But from the Irish point of view, I take a general view that if the UK does well, Ireland will do well economically, because that economic relationship is very important.
'They are very conscious of the impact on Northern Ireland but, look, it's early days yet in terms of any prospective trade deal, nothing is clear at all in respect of that.'
Mr Martin said Ireland was also working with the EU to 'facilitate and ease' post-Brexit economic barriers on trade with the UK .
'Ireland's relationship with Britain is still very strong economically,' he added.
'It's a very, very important market for us. And, so, if the UK economy picks up in whatever shape or form, or for whatever reason, Ireland will benefit from that.
'And so that's why the relationship between the UK and Ireland is very important, because we've got to control what we can control in a very challenging geopolitical situation. It's challenging, but that's how I see it.'
Mr Martin said he would not understate the importance of the recent UK/Ireland summit in Liverpool, signalling that it could pave the way for greater Anglo-Irish co-operation on off-shore wind energy production.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
31 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Spending war of words will only heat up as Holyrood election looms
The battle lines have been well and truly drawn ahead of 2026 Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It didn't take long for the traditional war of words to kick off between ministers north and south of the Border. The Chancellor's spending review was a blizzard of big numbers. Rachel Reeves said it would deliver an average block grant for Scotland of £50.9 billion per year over the next three years. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is the largest settlement in real terms since devolution was introduced, she said. UK ministers said it amounted to an extra £9.1 billion for the Scottish Government over the review period. Chancellor Rachel Reeves | PA 'That's more money than ever before for them to invest in Scottish public services like our NHS, police, housing and schools,' said Scottish Secretary Ian Murray. Keen Holyrood watchers will not be surprised to hear that Shona Robison, the SNP's Finance Secretary, took a different view. She insisted Scotland was yet again being treated 'as an afterthought'. 'Today's settlement for Scotland is particularly disappointing, with real terms growth of 0.8 per cent a year for our overall block grant, which is lower than the average for UK departments,' she said. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Had our resource funding for day-to-day priorities grown in line with the UK Government's overall spending, we would have £1.1 billion more to spend on our priorities over the next three years. 'In effect, Scotland has been short-changed by more than a billion pounds.' Analysis by experts such as those at the Fraser Of Allander Institute (FAI), attached to Strathclyde University, helps cut through some of the noise. The wider UK picture, it said, is one of 'largesse in the short-run' followed by cuts in future years. On the day-to-day spending side, the Scottish Government's funding does indeed grow at an average of 0.8 per cent a year after accounting for inflation. This is lower than forecast by the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission last month. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We have seen some Labour MPs and MSPs describing this event as increasing the block grant by £9.1 billion over the spending review period,' experts at the FAI wrote in a blog post. 'While it is true that Barnett consequentials add up to this figure (across different periods for resource and capital), this doesn't seem like a particularly transparent or helpful way of describing the changes. 'It essentially assumes that no additional funding would have been made available for the Scottish Government in cash terms relative to that in 2025/26 – which is not a credible baseline. 'A much more insightful – though perhaps less cheery – conclusion from looking at the SFC's forecast is that by 2028/29, funding will be £0.7 billion lower than their central estimate published on 29 May.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad David Phillips, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the increase in the Scottish Government's day-to-day funding was frontloaded, at 1.2 per cent in 2026/27, then 0.6 per cent and 0.7 per cent in subsequent years. 'With devolved elections looming, this poses a risk: it will be easier to fund any pledges/giveaways around the time of the election than later years,' he wrote on social media. 'Parties need to avoid the temptation to promise unfunded 'goodies'; their pledges will need to be carefully scrutinised. 'While the Scottish Government's budget will increase overall, the NHS could easily absorb all of the increase - necessitating cuts to other spending. 'That's particularly likely from 2027/28 onwards, due to combo of smaller increases in UK funding and devolved tax and benefit forecasts. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'It's perfectly legitimate for the Scottish Government to prioritise benefits and public sector pay rises - but without further tax rises that will squeeze many services even more than in the rest of the UK.' Of course, there were other big announcements for Scotland in the spending review, not least money for a long-awaited carbon capture project in Aberdeenshire. The Acorn facility, which had previously been overlooked in favour of schemes down south, is in line for 'development funding' from the UK Government, although it is not clear how much money is actually on the table. Ms Robison said the Scottish Government had been provided with no figures and no timeframe. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Elsewhere, the Chancellor confirmed up to £750 million in funding for the creation of a supercomputer at Edinburgh University, which could be one of the most powerful in the world. The plan had previously been scrapped by Ms Reeves in the early weeks of her Government taking office. There was also an initial investment of £250 million over the next three years in the Faslane naval base, the home of the UK's nuclear deterrent, while Glasgow will benefit from wider munitions funding. Increased cash for the NHS and housing in England will see more money flow north to Scotland, and SNP ministers will be under pressure to pass this on. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "What we have done previously is we have passed on health resource consequentials and [then] some, going back years and years,' Ms Robison told journalists in Holyrood. "We haven't just matched health resource consequentials, but we've given more than that. So that has been our pattern of investment in the health service previously." But as the Holyrood election looms next year, it is clear the war of words over spending - and who is to blame for the state of public services - will only heat up. In a briefing for Scottish journalists, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones said the spending review will mean £2.9 billion extra for Scotland each year.
Scotsman
32 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Reflections on populism, as Tory political black hole puts democracy at risk
PA Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Putting Nigel Farage back in his box may require more than just exposing the shortcomings of populist leaders now causing electoral upsets and mayhem throughout Western democracies. The Hamilton by-election produced a Labour victory. The SNP identified the wrong opponent and lost. The Tories just collapsed. The Reform Party though, confirmed the danger that they pose to our country courtesy of an electoral system built for another age and a political black hole created by 14 years of a soulless and reckless Tory Government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Hidden from public view until polling day in Scotland, populism, a seemingly innocuous term and very much of English origin, via UKIP and the Brexit party, has now emerged as a frightening reminder of a political idea which is now tearing America apart and overwhelming any idea of democracy and justice. The Scottish by-election and the recent elections in England should be a wake up call for the traditional or progressive parties in the UK who are in need themselves of 'reform' based on a deeper understanding of a changing electorate. The political black hole left by the last Tory Government, reflects their running of Britain into the ground, souring the mood of electors and paving the way for populism to take hold. What is crucial, is not just the austerity, national decline, diminishing expectations, economic stagnation and the savaging of the public realm , but the erosion of trust and respect for politics resulting in a bitter, angry, insecure electorate exhibiting all the signs of low mood, a negative psyche, and a political Zeitgeist requiring a new spirit for a new age refurbishing our beliefs, attitudes, feelings and values, a new driving force reflecting new concerns and aspirations of a different future. This is vital if we are to deal with the much more frightening and damaging legacy. Rachel Reeves successfully used the term, financial black hole to fix in the minds of electors the extent of the financial carnage facing the new Government. Progressives now need to use and understand the term, 'political black hole' if we are to confront the crisis in our politics, and the stress being imposed upon our democracy. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sounds alarmist but there is evidence everywhere of complacency and the familiar refrain of 'it couldn't happen here' despite populism and authoritarianism finding expression today in the form of American troops on the streets of Los Angeles. We need a vision of the future that inspires and offers solutions to our more intractable problems and restores trust in our politics and politicians. Any sense of alienation can find a home in Populist parties. For progressive parties, a period of reflection would make more sense than being tempted to drift to the right and compete with the divisive ideas of the Reform Party. The 'scunner' factor is creating doubts about the relevance of our traditional politics to the daily lives of electors. Entertaining the idea of a cult leader should be deeply offensive to supporters of democracy. Deep seams of discontent could be easily mined, by Farage who is the consummate opportunist, a predator circling for political prey. There are however other issues which may more reliably explain our vulnerable democracy and the ramshackle nature of our electoral system. Evidence abounds of an ancient electoral system not fit for modern day purposes and an electorate weary and dissatisfied with political outcomes. Too often we cast electors in a series of political dramas but they feel sidelined in what should be about them and at times feeling more like the victims of politics not the beneficiaries. Policies often lack stories or messaging or relevance of where people fit in? The discourse at Westminster is often perceived as too complex, technocratic, managerial, London centric, and lost in complex issues such as AI, Growth, Gender and GDP where a lack of inclusive or illustrative narratives are alienating people. Westminster is making few concessions to the idea of four nation politics. And we still live in an over centralised Union. The missteps by the Government in its early stages undoubtedly undermined the Labour Party creed and brand. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There are however deep seated long term issues that must be addressed, in particular the voting system. The 'First past the Post,' method of electing MPs is antiquated and undemocratic and could be a dangerous entry vehicle for populists. In July 2024, the Labour government was elected with a landslide of 412 MPs out of the total number of 650 MPs in the House of Commons. But this was achieved with only 9.7 million votes out of a total of 48 million people in the UK registered and eligible to vote. Labour gained 20 per cent of the total eligible vote and 30 percent of those who did vote: this means that nearly 40 million people didn't vote Labour or didn't bother to vote! Reform won 5 seats, with over 4 million votes the Conservative party with nearly 7 million votes won 121 seats. Our electoral process can deliver a huge majority of seats in the House of Commons on the back of a minority of voters in the country. None of this makes sense and remains a key issue in our weakening democracy. Westminster represents constituencies but doesn't reflect the people. It provides a reminder of what a party like Reform could achieve, with a deeply divided country, the collapse of Tory party and a fragile and less trusting electorate. This is why progressive parties must build consensus politics. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Turnout also matters. The 2024 Westminster election turnout of 59.4 was the second lowest since 1918. A record high of 83.9% was achieved in 1950. The Scottish Parliament by-election in Hamilton had a turnout of 44.2 percent of those eligible to vote. For some this was a decent outcome but surely after an intensely fought campaign, a figure of nearly 60 percent not bothering to vote is an indictment of a failed voting and political system and ultimately our democracy. Our electoral system favours the two main parties. What is happening in Europe requires a wake up call to recognise that populism inevitably leads to authoritarianism, and a threat to
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves seized her moment – whatever the future brings, Labour's economic course is now set
The consensus has long been that the 2025 spending review would be a defining moment for Keir Starmer's government. For once, the consensus proved spot-on. The government's main priorities were set out on Wednesday in a blizzard of Commons announcements from Rachel Reeves, some economically substantive, others more for show. The upshot is that the shape of the British state, as Labour intends it, is now decided until the eve of the next election. There are further crossroads still to come, some of them major, as the years covered by the review unroll. Taxes are likely to rise, probably as soon as the autumn budget, to pay for Reeves's big ticket boosts on Wednesday for defence, health and housing. Council tax could rise too, with possibly dramatic results. The review's emphasis on capital spending means current spending could be squeezed again, perhaps heralding pay battles. Nevertheless, Labour has set its course. The administrative purpose of the spending review is to define where money is spent in the British state. But the review is also a defining political and cultural moment. It sets out the choices by which the government will stand or fall, and which aim to locate an electoral sweet spot. That spot, still elusive and distant despite Labour's Holyrood byelection win last week, is one in which, as Reeves put it, a sense of renewal 'is felt in people's everyday lives'. Politically, this speech was a moment of truth for the chancellor herself. Reeves has had a tough first year. Some of the grind she will have expected, some of it not. The year has been dominated by the winter fuel allowance blunder, which was not hers alone but which she inevitably owns. She has maintained a dogged commitment to her strict fiscal rules – she repeated it in Wednesday's speech – in spite of new global shocks that might allow her to adapt them. Lacklustre macroeconomic out-turns have not helped; inflation and unemployment have both ticked up. Last summer's donations row and questions about the truthfulness of her personal CV have done her no favours either. The bookies were starting to mark down the Cabinet Office minister, Pat McFadden, as a potential successor before Reeves spoke. But Reeves did more than enough in her speech to put the lid on that, at least for now. The muttering against her lacks momentum, since it comes from the usual backbench and union critics. Cabinet support, not least from Starmer himself, is meanwhile described as rock solid. 'She is universally popular and respected for being straight,' a minister says. If Starmer removed her he would find himself in trouble too. Even so, when Reeves addressed MPs on Wednesday she had something to prove. If her career was not on the line, her authority was. A well-connected former Whitehall mandarin put it very clearly to me a couple of days ago. 'It really is a pivotal time for her,' he said. 'It has been a really difficult first year. The inheritance was genuinely bad. But the response has blunted her reputation and her options. The main problem is that the government has still not successfully made clear what kind of Britain it is trying to create. If she is to make that vision clear, then this is the time she absolutely needs to do it.' To understand Reeves, it is important to go back to her record as shadow chancellor. Much of her approach was set out in two speeches. The first, given in Washington DC in May 2023, launched the idea of 'securonomics', which she echoed on Wednesday. The Washington speech was the historically bolder of the two. It amounted to an obituary for the era of borderless economic globalisation. It placed national economic security, both for the country and for the public, at the centre of strategy. The second, Reeves's Mais lecture in March 2024, filled this out more watchfully, because the election was nearing. It emphasised the active role of the state in curbing economic decline and inequality, and emphasising the centrality of growth. The connection between those speeches and the announcements this week is clearly umbilical. The spending review's main focus – defence, health and levelling up – is rooted in the securonomics approach. Reeves may be one of Labour's most pragmatic ministers. But this absolutely does not mean that she is merely a technocrat without priorities. Indeed she has described herself, in my hearing, as a social democrat. I am reasonably certain she still would. Her record and her priorities bear it out. So did Wednesday's speech. Her reform of Treasury policy towards growth outside London is a striking example. Few in the cabinet have such a visceral commitment to social and economic mobility. For her, as she made clear on Wednesday, this is personal. Nevertheless, some of what Reeves said in opposition is simply no longer valid. In particular, the assumption in both speeches that the US shares Britain's values and is a partner for stability has been comprehensively trashed by Donald Trump. Nor, despite the fact that they were given after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, do Reeves's speeches from opposition contain any hint of the much higher priority now earmarked for defence spending. True, Reeves is not a chancellor who panders to the parts of the Labour coalition whose priorities are unchanged since the middle of the last century. But, as the railways and energy already show, she is open to different ownership models. She was quick to settle with the unions on pay last summer. And she absolutely does not believe, as Liz Truss did, that the key is for government to get out of the way. Ever since she became chancellor, many have been uncertain about whether Reeves can pitch a vision strongly enough to connect with the wider public. She allowed herself to be dubbed an iron chancellor, but she then got involved in the donations furore. Why does she insist on such a tight policy at the Treasury, some ask? The answer is either that she and Starmer think they have no alternative in the circumstances; or, it's that they are doing it this way because they actually believe in it. Yesterday's Commons speech was clearly an attempt to show that it is the former not the latter, and given fewer constraints the outlook might be very different. Reeves said repeatedly that her choices were 'Labour choices'. So often was this claim made that it all became a bit insistent, but the purpose was clear. It was to stake out distinct centre-left ideological ground for tackling the hazards of the 2020s. Though some will dispute it, it is the thread that runs through the whole of Reeves's career. The test now is whether that essentially social democratic approach of growing the economy and then redistributing the proceeds will work in today's world, especially given the entrenched imbalances of the British economy and the increasing volatility of British politics. Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist
