Ireland lose out on "lucrative" EU banking agency. Is this a lesson for Dublin?

alastair

realitykeeper wrote: »

...Now lets see who is peddling fiction.

We do. It’s you.

Dublin is a net economic contributor to the rest of the country. That’s because it’s the major urban centre of the country, and therefore attracts all the economic activity (and people) that revolve around the major urban centre that is the nation’s capital. Leitrim makes no sense whatsoever for any of your bizarre analogies, given that it’s a sparsely populated rural region, with no infrastructure to support any of those expenditures (and any government or state administration department is a net tax consumer, not generator - nothing wrong in that, but let’s not pretend otherwise). State supports follow the populace, and most of the populace are not in Leitrim, they’re in Dublin.

cgcsb

Goodshape wrote: »

You say that as if it were automatically and unquestionably a good thing. We're a tiny, beautiful, island with a wonderful rich culture. But sure **** all that, yeah?, GDP and massive cities is what we want, because...

Large cities in the western world are good for the environment. Large cities = less septic tanks, less cars and less bungalow blight.

cgcsb

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is in the central plateau, a trifling 50 miles from the country`s epicenter. By contrast, Dublin is on Ireland`s eastern extremity and a long long way from Clare to there.




Nobody said it was (because the point would have been irrelevant). Focus Sugar Free.

The location of Switerland's cities is accidental, the mountains decided where they'd be. It doesn't matter how far west Clare is from Dublin.

cgcsb

realitykeeper wrote: »

My point exactly and the Swiss have Switzerland to prove it. There is no housing crisis or traffic chaos in Berne and in rural Switzerland, communities are not dying a slow death.

Are you suggesting we should send an IDA envoy to Germany in the 1930s and convince the Nazi high command to invest their stolen gold and jewelry into Irish depositories instead of Switzerland? That might be a hard sell in those days.

cgcsb

realitykeeper wrote: »

Whereas you all want to live in a big horrible town called Dublin. The spire does not inspire. The floozie in the Jacuzzi across from Heuston station is a joke. The boardwalk with its junkies, the vomit in Temple bar, the common Dublin accent and to top it all the pride Dublin people take in their horrible city is cringe worthy. Imagine what foreigners must think when Dublin is shown off with pride, it`s like passing flatulence and then boasting about it. I do not want to cause offence but that is how I see it.

So then why not return to your fair boarded up hamlet?

cgcsb

zetalambda wrote: »

Completely understandable. If you put yourself in their shoes, moving to somewhere like Dublin is like taking a step back in life. Relocating from London to Dublin is akin to moving from Dublin to Waterford.

In simple terms of the step down in % population yes but in practical terms
not really. The gap in available services and entertainment between London and Dublin is small enough. The gap between Dublin and Waterford is an Ocean.

The biggest gap is in infrastructure provision. Reliable rail services are required and these have not been provided partially do to cultchie begrudgers like the OP who are so up to their oxters in FF rhetoric, they still believe in Dev's dithering vision or a ruralized economy in which we'd sell eachother arran sweaters and dance at the crossroads.

cgcsb

realitykeeper wrote: »

They did not invest in rural Ireland either, nor would they necessarily need to in order to develop other parts of the country. What they would need to do is:
* Stop using the rest of the country to subsidize Dublin.
* Stop borrowing to fund Dublin based state institutions and state employees unless the repayment of the loan and its interest remains exclusively with Dublin.
* Let Dublin assume responsibility for 95% of the national debt and interest on the national debt as that is where the money was spent.

Are you trolling?

realitykeeper

alastair wrote: »

We do. It’s you.

Dublin is a net economic contributor to the rest of the country. That’s because it’s the major urban centre of the country, and therefore attracts all the economic activity (and people) that revolve around the major urban centre that is the nation’s capital. Leitrim makes no sense whatsoever for any of your bizarre analogies, given that it’s a sparsely populated rural region, with no infrastructure to support any of those expenditures (and any government or state administration department is a net tax consumer, not generator - nothing wrong in that, but let’s not pretend otherwise). State supports follow the populace, and most of the populace are not in Leitrim, they’re in Dublin.

Lack of infrastructure in Leitrim - not a problem, you forget money is no object. Just give them all the money Dublin gets and the GDP of Leitrim would skyrocket. Dublin would quickly become the Detroit of Europe as people follow the money.

alastair

realitykeeper wrote: »

Lack of infrastructure in Leitrim - not a problem, you forget money is no object. Just give them all the money Dublin gets and the GDP of Leitrim would skyrocket. Dublin would quickly become the Detroit of Europe as people follow the money.

Once again - the money follows the populace - that’s the reason Dublin gets more expenditure than Leitrim. The same populace is why Dublin is a net contributor to the rest of the country, and Leitrim is a net recipient. Money is no object nowhere - Dublin included.

Lux23

Not really, we drew with Paris and then they drew lots so we did pretty well to be fair. Not that there aren't plenty of lessons to learn.

xper

So to sum up this thread, the op has an irrational hatred of everything Dublin and a delusional view of how the Ireland’s society and economy works.

Does anything else really need to be said?

cgcsb

xper wrote: »

So to sum up this thread, the op has an irrational hatred of everything Dublin and a delusional view of how the Ireland’s society and economy works.

Does anything else really need to be said?

Well yes the very valid concern regarding Dublin's infrastructure being chronically underfunded. I firmly believe we could have scored higher than Paris, and there would have been no need to draw lots if we had built metro north in 2010 and laid the ground work for DARTunderground, while planning high density SDZ in and around the inner suburbs. The underfunding needs to be addressed.

The OP is a looney jackeen-bashing fantasist.

server down

zetalambda wrote: »

Completely understandable. If you put yourself in their shoes, moving to somewhere like Dublin is like taking a step back in life. Relocating from London to Dublin is akin to moving from Dublin to Waterford.

Er. They went to Amsterdam instead. I assume most of the people (or many of them) are European so the continent was preferred. Dublin was 7th out of 19

server down

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. It was a step forward for me anyway, I'd never have been able to afford my own place there. London is a global mega city, Dublin is a small calm city on the sea, a lot of people prefer the lifestyle here. Including myself, I moved back here from London a couple of years ago after 4 years there. I love London but way prefer the lifestyle here, and not having to queue for absolutely everything!

The idea that people like larger cities for the sake of it is nonsense. A hell of a lot of people in London think about leaving.

Anyway Dublin feels like a large city to me with all the problems that entails, it has taken me 2-3 hours to do what should have been a 30 minute train trip twice in the last few weeks. Reminds me of London.

server down

cgcsb wrote: »

Well yes the very valid concern regarding Dublin's infrastructure being chronically underfunded. I firmly believe we could have scored higher than Paris, and there would have been no need to draw lots if we had built metro north in 2010 and laid the ground work for DARTunderground, while planning high density SDZ in and around the inner suburbs. The underfunding needs to be addressed.

The OP is a looney jackeen-bashing fantasist.

People blame the government but we have a “intellectual class” hostile to government investment in infrastructure. Colm McCarthy in the independent is once again decrying metro north as a vanity project. The buses are the future.

cgcsb

server down wrote: »

People blame the government but we have a “intellectual class” hostile to government investment in infrastructure. Colm McCarthy in the independent is once again decrying metro north as a vanity project. The buses are the future.

Absolutely, mostly lads who still think it's the 70s

John_Rambo

server down wrote: »

People blame the government but we have a “intellectual class” hostile to government investment in infrastructure. Colm McCarthy in the independent is once again decrying metro north as a vanity project. The buses are the future.

There’s a train that runs from Limerick to Ballybrophy every day that carries as few as 73 passengers a day. It collects as little as €735 a day. The tax payer subvents €550 for each passenger on that train.

There’s no train, underground (or electric) from the Swords area or Dublin Airport to Dublin City Centre. Massive urban areas by Irish standards with monstrous revenue to the country. These peoples property tax is being invested in other counties for their efforts.

It's estimated that €10 Billion leaves Dublin every year to subsidise the rural areas.

Realitykeeper, you're deluded and bitter if you think Dublin is taking and not giving. The city is underfunded and under invested. You have a chip on your shoulder and your attitude stinks. If a Dubliner decided to to go on to any of the other regional forums and spouted the bile in insults that you've come up with on this thread they'd be banned.

Gaspode

realitykeeper banned from this thread. Any further disruption will lead to a forum ban.

Hotblack Desiato

Whatever about general taxation, it's a complete and utter disgrace that the property tax collected in Dublin is not spent in Dublin.

It's one thing to have to pay higher mortgages to buy in a capital city - that's the same everywhere - but it's unfair to have to pay higher taxes because of those high property prices, and doubly unfair that those higher taxes don't even benefit the area they're collected from.

And all we Dubliners get in return for our 'generosity' is abuse.

Let every county council stand on its own feet, it should collect locally what it needs to spend locally and not expect Dublin to bail it out.

Ideally property tax would be replaced with a site area tax - that poxy McMansion isn't looking so attractive then! Rural dwellers are polluting the water with septic tanks, polluting the air with their long diesel commutes and having to drive everywhere to do anything, bumping up our national carbon footprint for which we will have to pay fines, and destroying the very countryside they claim to love by building one-off houses - and in the same breath they're wondering why the rural villages and towns they refuse to live in are dying! You couldn't make it up.

Dublin doesn't even have a proper mayor FFS. Major change is needed but all of our political parties are beholden to rural lobbies.

We really need a Dublin party for Dublin people. But what do we expect, when so many of the TDs elected in Dublin are not even from the city and owe no allegiance to it.

realitykeeper

alastair wrote: »

Once again - the money follows the populace - that’s the reason Dublin gets more expenditure than Leitrim. The same populace is why Dublin is a net contributor to the rest of the country, and Leitrim is a net recipient. Money is no object nowhere - Dublin included.

No, no. The people follow the money. If people followed the people, a lot of migrants would be trying go to India instead of places that are perceived as affluent, (like the US which has a much smaller population). Of course, in Ireland, people are not just following any old money to Dublin, they are following their own money which the Dublin government spends in Dublin.

Dr Crayfish

realitykeeper wrote: »

No, no. The people follow the money. If people followed the people, a lot of migrants would be trying go to India instead of places that are perceived as affluent, like the US which has a much smaller population.

Well why don't you start your own enterprise in Leitrim or whatever backwater you're interested in and leave Dublin alone? Moaning about the capital isn't going to get you very far.

realitykeeper

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Well why don't you start your own enterprise in Leitrim or whatever backwater you're interested in and leave Dublin alone? Moaning about the capital isn't going to get you very far.

But the Dublin government has spent my money in Dublin, I need it back to start my enterprise in Leitrim.

tricky D

Gaspode wrote: »

realitykeeper banned from this thread. Any further disruption will lead to a forum ban.

Mod: realiutykeeper given a break for ignoring mod instruction.

alastair

realitykeeper wrote: »

No, no. The people follow the money. If people followed the people, a lot of migrants would be trying go to India instead of places that are perceived as affluent, (like the US which has a much smaller population). Of course, in Ireland, people are not just following any old money to Dublin, they are following their own money which the Dublin government spends in Dublin.

Just to clarify what should be patently obvious, but you’ve managed to make a hames of nonetheless. ‘The Money’ (state inward investment) follows the populace. The same applies in India, the US, and everywhere in the world. It’s the State’s responsibility to allocate supports to it’s citizenry, and, as there’s multiples more citizens in Dublin than Leitrim, it’s clear that the state will spend multiples more on services and infrastructure there than a sparsely populated region. I’m not really sure what point you’re making with ‘people following people’ , as nobody made any such claim.

odyssey06

Let's move our capital to the middle of nowhere, like Burma:
http://www.philstar.com/modern-living/2014/11/15/1391742/white-elephant-middle-nowhere

If the money followed the money, all of these white elephant projects would have kick-started self-sustaining economic booms:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/24/3bn-subway-station-toronto-alaska-bridge-pyongyang-hotel-valencia-city-arts-sciences