In a luxury Saudi hotel some 3,000 miles away from her economic woes, Britain’s Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered a plucky pitch to some of the wealthiest people on the planet. “I believe that countries are successful when they are open and trading — I think that’s good for productivity because competition spurs productivity, growth,” she told business leaders at the Fortune Global Forum last month. “And in a small and open economy like Britain’s … we want our businesses to be able to access global markets.” With this in mind, the chancellor said, Britain was striking trade deals with the EU, the U.S., as well as fast-growing economies like India, as she teased “big opportunities” from an upcoming free trade agreement with Gulf countries. With a difficult budget looming, the chancellor has increasingly turned her gaze overseas in her elusive search for economic growth. And with the Office for Budget Responsibility expected to downgrade the U.K.’s productivity outlook before the budget, Reeves is urging the fiscal watchdog to positively “score” new trade deals according to how much growth they might deliver. But her efforts may be in vain. Far from being the magic bullet that will reinvigorate the economy, the benefits of trade deals may take years to materialize — and some government claims appear to be overstated, experts have told POLITICO. EU ‘RESET’ HOPES By the government’s estimation, its plans to “reset” its relationship with the European Union will add nearly £9 billion to the U.K. economy by 2040, equivalent to a GDP boost of 0.3 percent. Key elements include deals on agrifood, energy trading, and a youth mobility scheme.  Separate analysis by John Springford, an associate fellow at the Centre for European Reform in London, is more optimistic, predicting a GDP boost of between 0.3 and 0.7 percent over ten years as a result of the agreement. The biggest uplifts, he claims, would come from a youth mobility deal.  But negotiations on key elements of the deal have only just begun, and Springford admits details are still “a bit sketchy.” As a result, he says, it would be difficult for the OBR to accept Reeves’ ask to score these deals, which would also take a long time to play out. Even if the government’s estimates are met, he added, the deal will do little to reverse the overall damage caused by Brexit, which the OBR estimates will reduce the U.K.’s long-run productivity by 4 percent. “The damage caused by Brexit can never be significantly repaired without getting rid of one or all of the government’s ‘red lines’,” he continued, in reference to Labour’s refusal to rejoin the single market or customs union.  In recent months the chancellor has talked about the impact of Brexit on the economy, but has suggested this impact can be offset by the reset deal, as well as by trade deals with non-EU countries. “There is no doubting that the impact of Brexit is severe and long lasting,” she said in an interview with Sky News in October, “and that is why we are trying to do trade deals around the world, with the U.S., India, but most importantly with the EU, so that our exporters here in Britain have a chance to sell things made here all around the world.” Guests at the Fortune Global Forum 2025 Gala Dinner. | Cedric Ribeiro/Getty Images for Fortune Media But Ahmet Kaya, principal economist at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said the EU deal was “more symbolic than transformative.”  “It slightly eases checks on agri-food products, which should help certain sectors, but the macroeconomic effect is minimal considering that the government’s impact estimate is just £9 billion — which is cumulative gain over time — relative to the size of the £3.6 trillion economy.” INDIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT Reeves will also be pinning her growth hopes on the U.K.’s recently completed free trade agreement with India, which the government predicts will boost U.K. GDP by 0.13 percent, worth £4.8 billion a year.  The deal will ultimately see India remove tariffs on up to 90 percent of U.K. exports and cut India’s average effective tariffs on U.K. goods from roughly 15 percent to 3 percent, with significant benefits for Britain’s automotive and Scotch whisky exports. But Sophie Hale, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, said it could take 10 to 15 years for the full effects of the deal to be felt, partly because many tariff reductions will be introduced gradually and are subject to quotas. “Given the OBR is looking over a five-year window, we really aren’t going to expect a big impact,” she said. “Even if it was spread evenly, you’re maybe getting less than half of that by the end of the forecast, because it has to actually be implemented.” The deal is “definitely worth having,” Hale added. “But in terms of … OBR productivity growth forecasts or shifting the dial on U.K. growth, it’s pretty small and a lot of those impacts are going to be delayed.”  TARIFF TERRORS Reeves will also be hoping that the U.K.’s Economic Prosperity Deal with the U.S. — announced with much fanfare in May — will have gone some way in cushioning the impact of President Donald Trump’s punitive tariff regime. The deal saw the U.K. hit with 10 percent baseline tariffs on most goods, with reduced duties for automotives, steel and aluminum, and increased market access for agricultural exports.  While this gave Britain a comparative advantage over most other countries, it has still left the U.K. in a weaker trade position with the U.S. than a year ago. According to NIESR’s latest forecast, U.S. tariffs have reduced U.K. growth by around 0.1 percentage points this year and 0.2 percentage points next year.  “That’s a smaller drag than expected in March, reflecting the more moderate global spill-overs from tariffs, but the overall impact remains negative,” said Kaya. But even this remains uncertain. Like the EU deal agreed earlier this year, much of the EPD remains under negotiation, including pharmaceutical tariffs, which makes it difficult to “score” in terms of its economic impact. MAKING TRADE DEALS WORK Even when trade deals are fully agreed and implemented, their economic impacts are not guaranteed, and it is sometimes an uphill struggle to get businesses to actually make use of them.  “Trade deals have the potential to support economic growth, but their impact does not appear overnight and needs time and support to make it happen,” noted George Riddell, managing director of the Goyder trade consultancy.  “Businesses need to make connections with local customers, understand local regulatory requirements and establish partnerships to help with relevant legal, tax and customs procedures.” In the government’s trade strategy, published over the summer, the Department for Business and Trade committed to overhauling how it supports U.K. businesses and provides export advice through a “one-stop-shop.”  “While the new website is a substantial improvement on what was there before, more needs to be done to get businesses using it,” said Riddell.  Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves will be hoping that the U.K.’s Economic Prosperity Deal with the U.S. will have gone some way in cushioning the impact of President Donald Trump’s punitive tariff regime. | Pool photo by Jordan Pettitt/AFP via Getty Images Trade Minister Chris Bryant acknowledged this issue in a recent speech, telling businesses the estimates of the economic impact of trade deals could only be realized “if businesses are ambitious enough to exploit these opportunities.”  “It’s not just about signing free trade agreements,” he said at a pitching event for exporters earlier this month. “We can sign FTAs, we can do all that negotiating … But it’s exploiting those FTAs once they’ve been signed that is really important and will actually drive growth.” Looking back at the U.K.’s first post-Brexit trade deals, David Henig, director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy think tank, says there is little sign of material impact. “There is currently no evidence that the new trade deals with Australia and New Zealand have affected the U.K. economy in any meaningful sense,” he said, adding there was “nothing that indicates any permanent increase in trade so far.” ‘BEATING THE FORECASTS’ As the budget approaches, Reeves’ growth ambitions look increasingly uncertain. The OBR has downgraded the U.K.’s productivity outlook, potentially increasing government borrowing by £14 billion and £20 billion. Just last week, figures from the Office for National Statistics show that U.K. GDP fell unexpectedly by 0.1 percent in September. Publicly, at least, the chancellor has remained upbeat. “My job as chancellor is to try and beat those forecasts,” she said last month, “and what we’re doing with those trade deals with India, the U.S. and the EU, the investments that we’ve secured, including from big tech companies in the U.K., shows that we have a huge amount to offer as a place to grow a business, to start and scale a business.  “We’ll continue to secure those investments in all parts of Britain, to create those good jobs, paying wages and to boost our productivity, which means that we will start to see those numbers coming through in economic growth and prosperity for working people.” James Fitzgerald contributed to this report.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Ein Gespräch zwischen Beton, Brücke und Bundeskanzleramt: Gordon Repinski trifft Jens Spahn zum Spaziergang durch das Berliner Regierungsviertel und spricht mit dem Unions-Fraktionschef über das Koalitionsklima, den Kanzler und wie sich Deutschland in einer Moll-Stimmung befindet. Spahn erklärt, warum der „linke Empörungszirkus“ über die Stadtbilddebatte für ihn Symbol ist, wie Union und SPD gemeinsam das Land stabilisieren sollen und weshalb für ihn „Mitte rechts“ nicht dasselbe ist wie „rechts der Mitte“. Er spricht über Migration, Rentenpolitik, Wirtschaftswachstum – und darüber, warum das Land wieder Zuversicht braucht. Es geht zu dem um Spahns Verhältnis zu Friedrich Merz, den inneren Frieden mit alten Ambitionen, seine Sicht auf die AfD und seine Haltung zu Trump und den Republikanern. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

MUMBAI, India — Donald Trump’s tariffs are accelerating Britain’s dash to strengthen ties with India — even if that means putting trade before morals. Prime Minister Keir Starmer spent this week leading the U.K.’s largest-ever trade delegation to India, flying with 125 business chiefs to Mumbai to sign investment-driving agreements. It marked an all-singing, all-dancing bid to boost Britain’s stagnant economy — and help both countries diversify away from the United States. Dealing with New Delhi, however, isn’t straightforward. Two major diplomatic differences loomed in the background of the mutual charm offensive between the former British colony and its one-time imperial ruler.  First, and perhaps most significant, is India’s continued funding of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by buying of millions of barrels of oil from Moscow. Narendra Modi displayed his fondness for Vladimir Putin just as Starmer’s mission was preparing for lift off — writing a happy birthday message to his “friend,” and sending his best wishes for the Russian president’s “good health and long life.” That’s not a message Britain — a staunch supporter of Kyiv — would endorse. But Starmer, the progressive leader of the center-left Labour Party, displayed only reticence when it came to public grilling on these hot-button topics — with the quest for new avenues of trade getting top billing in the realpolitik era of Trump 2.0. As one high-ranking Downing Street official put it: “You don’t get to choose who your world leaders are.” They were, like others cited in this piece, granted anonymity to speak candidly to POLITICO during the delegation to Mumbai. STRINGING BRITAIN ALONG India spent years stringing London along over a free trade deal coveted by a post-Brexit Britain. First came Boris Johnson. Britain’s then-prime minister bullishly declared on a visit to India in April 2022 that the deal would be signed by the Indian festival of Diwali. It wasn’t. Later came Rishi Sunak, particularly revered in India for becoming the first prime minister of Indian descent to lead the former colonial power. Despite that, he never held much hope for striking a deal with the notoriously-difficult negotiators, and was booted out of office without clinching an agreement. Then came Trump’s return. When the U.S. president swiftly made good on his threats to hit nations, both friend and foe, with tariffs, it sent world powers scrambling for alternative markets. Just five months after Trump’s second inauguration, Modi dashed to Britain to ink a free trade agreement that the British government argued would mark a multi-billion pound export boost for the U.K. Trump has only highlighted India’s need for new trading partners with his imposition of steep tariffs on New Delhi over Modi’s refusal to stop buying oil from Moscow. Journalists traveling with Starmer to India pressed the British PM on whether he’d tell Modi to divest. He dodged the question.  India spent years stringing London along over a free trade deal coveted by a post-Brexit Britain. | Ashish Vaishnav/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images At a press conference after spending the day with his Indian counterpart, Starmer answered two questions on the subject in only the most opaque terms. When the cameras stopped rolling, aides clarified that the pair had indeed discussed Russian oil. It’s not the first time Starmer has played the global pragmatist, regardless of the moral matters at stake. Starmer held a landmark meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping last year, and twice declined to condemn the jailing of dozens of pro-democracy figures in another former British colony, Hong Kong, under authoritarian laws imposed by Beijing. The U.K. “mustn’t lose … the opportunity for our economy,” Starmer said, opting not to publicly rebuke Beijing over what is an affront to many in Britain. ‘HARD TO TAKE’ U.K. trade policy expert David Henig noted that trading relations between the U.K. and India had gotten off to a far better start for Starmer than his predecessors. But, he said, there’s “a long way to go” to ensure this leads to better government and business relations because of the challenging rules and politics of the country. “India’s relations with Putin are part of this picture and speak to a bigger issue — that it probably will never be an entirely reliable partner,” added the director at the European Centre for International Political Economy. For one, the Hindu nationalist is accused of overseeing democratic backsliding in India. Indeed, the second point of U.K. contention with New Delhi is the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British Sikh activist who has been jailed for eight years in India without a full trial. A United Nations panel described his detention as arbitrary as far back as May 2022. His family and supporters were pushing Starmer to take action on his trip. Starmer’s response to a question on whether he raised Johal’s ordeal was muted, with no public rebuke over the case. “Yes, we did raise proportionate cases,” he said. “We always raise them when we have the opportunity to do so.” Johal’s campaigning brother Gurpreet was disappointed that Starmer “didn’t even mention his name.” He added: “That is hard to take.” GRAND WELCOME Modi tried to court Trump but the pair have reportedly had a spectacular falling out in recent months. That may in part explain why Starmer’s welcome to India was so grand. Thousands of flags lined the streets of Mumbai with his and Modi’s face on, welcoming the British leader to the city. That will have been quite the shock for the prime minister who, if he tried to pull off a similar stunt back in Britain, would risk riots, or at least large-scale vandalism.   “My understanding is PM Modi said to the Maharishi government, please make sure that the prime minister understands how welcome he is in India,” said a second British official. “It is absolutely extraordinary,” they added. “I’m used to quite a level of welcome in Delhi for foreign leaders — I’ve never seen anything like this.” There were announcements from British universities, a defense deal — and a Bollywood studio committed to producing three new films in Britain, potentially representing thousands more jobs. British film industry leaders acknowledged the need to diversify partnerships away from Hollywood has only been heightened by Trump’s threat to impose 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made films. While in Mumbai, Starmer stayed in a palatial hotel overlooking the Gateway of India, built under the British Raj to commemorate the arrival of King George. After India won its independence struggle locals took to calling it the “Getaway from India,” because the last British troops fled from here in 1948.  Now it could symbolize quite the opposite — and much like under the British Empire, trade could end trumping most other values.

PARIS — French politics are so paralyzed that the resignation of President Emmanuel Macron — an idea once only whispered in the corridors of power — is now being openly debated. But while Macron’s departure would be an earthquake on the European diplomatic stage, there’s increasing doubt it would fix the gridlock stalling the Fifth Republic. France’s problems appear to be deeper. Macron is already scouting around for his fifth prime minister in less than two years, in the expectation that François Bayrou will be ousted on Monday over his unpopular measures to slash the country’s eye-watering budget deficit. But would a new prime ministerial nominee from Macron be able to force through the billions of euros in budget tightening that the country needs to avoid a debt crisis? And would a new snap election create a workable majority? Neither outcome seems likely. And even if Macron were to resign, his successor would almost certainly face the same obstacles. For nearly 70 years, the institutions of the French Fifth Republic have held, no matter how often people took to the streets or how long they went on strike. Governments came and went as presidents, for the most part, lasted until the end of their terms, albeit usually less popular than when they began. The system endured. But today the legislature is deadlocked, budget talks are flatlining, and murmurs of social unrest are growing louder. Financial markets are jumpy, and Bayrou himself is warning that Paris faces a Greek-style scenario unless it reins in spending. Against that backdrop, far-right National Rally President Jordan Bardella and far-left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon, whose parties together account for a third of seats in the National Assembly, are openly calling for the president to go. The broader conversation about his departure is no longer outlandish and now includes reputable political commentators and some figures from the center right. “We’re hearing this even from voices close to the Macron camp,” said Mathieu Gallard, a pollster at Ipsos France. “The discomfort is real.” HANGING IN THERE Macron is still seen as extremely unlikely to throw in the towel, not least because his premature exit — a presidential election isn’t due until 2027 — would do nothing to resolve the mess. Surveys show a new legislative election in the coming weeks would most likely yield another hung parliament with a few more seats for Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally. Emmanuel Macron is already scouting around for his fifth prime minister in less than two years, in the expectation that François Bayrou will be ousted on Monday over his unpopular measures to slash the country’s eye-watering budget deficit. | Christophe Petit Tesson/EPA “Politicians wrongly believe the myth that the French choose a leader, and then hand him a working parliamentary majority to act,” said French constitutional expert Benjamin Morel. That idea, Morel said, was a another casualty of Macron’s 2017 victory as a liberal disruptor who laid waste to France’s bipartisan tradition. The political fault lines that emerged from the rubble have, in a cruel twist of fate, come back to haunt him. “I haven’t seen this much uncertainty since I was a student in 1968,” said Eric Chaney, former chief economist of the AXA insurance firm, referring to May 1968 protests that brought France to a standstill and led to deep social and political changes. “Suddenly, you don’t know what is happening to your own economy, your own government,” Chaney said. NEW LEADER, SAME PROBLEMS Known to be headstrong, Macron has often waved off the possibility of an early departure. The 47-year-old centrist has been a dominant and increasingly polarizing force in French politics for the past eight years, while his promises to forge the country into “the start-up nation” haven’t quite been fulfilled. The president knows full well there is scant sign that French politicians are prepared to put aside their divisions and resolve the budget malaise for the good of the nation. Indeed, the mood in France is downright uncooperative, said Gaspard Gantzer, a former adviser to Socialist French President François Hollande. “We’ll carry on deepening the deficit, nothing will happen and the situation will just get worse,” he said. But French opposition parties would be wrong to think they can cycle through new prime ministers, fresh elections and even an early presidential election without swallowing the bitter medicine that Macron’s successive governments have tried to administer, Chaney said. “If people start thinking it’s not so bad, we can live with deficits, we are heading toward a full-blown crisis,” he said. “Germany will start thinking that France is a serious problem and the ECB [European Central Bank] will not be able to help the French government manage its debt.” Germany, Chaney says, could set conditions on any help the ECB gives France. But even if Berlin were able to strong-arm the French political establishment, would France follow suit? If the Yellow Vest protests of 2018 and 2019, the pensions protests of 2023 and the current calls for a national shutdown are anything to go by, an increasingly skeptical and restive public has little appetite for sacrifices and austerity. As for getting rid of Macron, France is a country steeped in regicidal revolutionary history and understands both the attractions and pitfalls of giving the boss the chop. It’s easy to call for his head — but you’ve got to be ready for the chaos that comes next.

The European Union’s economy would have looked far weaker after the pandemic without foreign workers, European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde said Saturday, warning policymakers not to ignore migration’s role even as it fuels political tensions. Speaking at the U.S. Federal Reserve’s annual symposium in Wyoming, Lagarde said an influx of foreign labor helped the eurozone absorb successive shocks like soaring energy costs and record inflation, while keeping growth and jobs intact. Employment in the bloc expanded by 4.1 percent between late 2021 and mid-2025, nearly matching gains in gross domestic product (GDP), she noted. “Although they represented only around 9 percent of the total labor force in 2022, foreign workers have accounted for half of its growth over the past three years,” Lagarde told the gathering of central bankers. Without that contribution, she added, “labor market conditions could be tighter and output lower.” Lagarde singled out Germany and Spain as examples. Germany’s GDP would be about 6 percent lower today without migrant labor, while Spain’s strong recovery also “owes much” to foreign workers, she said. Across the eurozone, employment has expanded by more than 4 percent since 2021, even as central bankers pushed through the steepest rate hikes in a generation. The ECB president argued that migration has played a crucial role in offsetting Europe’s shrinking birth rate and growing appetite for shorter working hours. That, she said, helped companies expand output and damped inflationary pressures even as wages lagged behind prices. But Lagarde also acknowledged the politics. Net immigration pushed the EU’s population to a record 450 million last year, even as governments from Berlin to Rome move to restrict new arrivals under pressure from voters flocking to far-right parties. “Migration could, in principle, play a crucial role in easing labor shortages as native populations age,” Lagarde said. “But political economy pressures may increasingly limit inflows.” She stressed that Europe’s labor market has emerged from recent shocks in “unexpectedly good shape.” But she cautioned against assuming that dynamic will last: demographic decline, political backlash and shifting worker preferences still threaten the eurozone’s resilience.

Donald Trump’s trade war is forcing Ireland to confront the fragile foundation of its economic miracle. One economist saw it coming. In the summer of 2024, just after taking up an economic advisory role to Ireland’s government, Stephen Kinsella, professor of economics at the University of Limerick, warned that the next crisis wouldn’t be homegrown — it would come from Washington. “The most obvious source,” he said, “would be the election of Donald Trump.” If Trump moved to block U.S. multinational investment in Ireland, the shock, he said, would make Ireland’s earlier period of austerity “look like an episode of the Care Bears.” Within months, Kinsella’s prediction began to materialize. Trump returned to the White House. He publicly called Ireland a “tax scam” and launched a trade assault that threatened the Irish exports of American pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer. Meanwhile, the EU — eyeing retaliation — has considered targeting big tech firms also based on the island, such as Apple, and reviewing services imported from the U.S. From every angle, Ireland’s unusually buoyant economy suddenly looked exposed. This has much to do with Ireland’s recent economic success being linked to the fortunes of U.S. multinationals. Such corporations, many of them with market valuations exceeding Ireland’s own GDP, employed an estimated 620,000 people across a workforce of 2.9 million in 2024, according to Ireland’s National Statistics Office. Even more stark: Just 10 international corporations account for over half of all corporate tax receipts — and they make up more than a third of total Irish government revenue. “It’s the highest reliance on corporate income among developed countries,” said Aidan Regan, political economy professor at Dublin’s University College and a vocal critic of the Irish model. The risk is not just economic slowdown, but a systemic shock. As Kinsella told a business podcast: “We are an economy that is very strangely structured, a beautiful freak.” And: “To lose the top three biggest, most concentrated players [would] basically wipe us out.” Kinsella declined to be interviewed for this story because of his government advisory role. But his analysis is shared by many including the country’s Fiscal Council, a statutory body set up to monitor Irish fiscal policy. DISAPPEARING WINDFALL In April, the Fiscal Council warned the government not to use corporate windfalls to fund permanent spending, because of the risk they could “easily disappear.” The source of these Irish corporate revenues is no mystery. What appear to be pharmaceutical exports or imports of digital services are in substance the effects of massive U.S. firms shifting their profits to Ireland, via intangible assets like intellectual property. Dublin is also lobbying hard within the EU to shield U.S. firms. | Mairo Cinquetti/NurPhoto via Getty Images The data tells the story. Corporate tax receipts began surging in 2015, following OECD-led reforms that curbed some abuses elsewhere but left key loopholes intact. As a result, many companies chose to anchor their royalty-generating assets in Ireland, where the tax on such income is a minuscule 6.25 percent. According to EU Tax Observatory research, Ireland is still leads the global rankings for corporate profit shifting. “Ireland is both in a very privileged position and a very precarious position,” Regina Doherty, a former Irish government minister who is now a member of European Parliament with the center-right European People’s Party, told POLITICO last month. Her party, Fine Gael, has been part of coalitions that governed Ireland through a series of shocks, including the post-2008 financial crisis, Brexit, and the pandemic — but the Trump shock may be the most serious of them all. “Certainly [this] is the most challenging time that I can remember in my political and adult career,” Doherty said. To guard against potential vulnerabilities, Irish officials have scrambled since Trump came to power to build relationships with U.S. state governors and congressional figures, hoping to soften Washington’s stance. When Taoiseach Micheál Martin met Trump in the Oval Office in March, he leaned on talking points from the Irish American Chamber of Commerce, describing the U.S.–Ireland relationship as a “two-way street.” Ireland is now the sixth-largest investor into the United States — a fact increasingly invoked as evidence of a balanced partnership. But Dublin is also lobbying hard within the EU to shield U.S. firms. Doherty warned that introducing a bloc-wide digital tax would be “incredibly damaging for the Irish economy” and said Ireland would “continue to advance that view with EU partners.” The EU is negotiating to avoid tariffs, including on sectors such as pharmaceuticals which Ireland’s corporate revenues depend on. But it is also considering a tax on digital firms to get more revenues for its own budget. FORTRESS IRELAND Even as it defends U.S. multinationals abroad, Ireland is scrambling to fortify its economy at home. Speaking at the Global Ireland event last month, Frances Ruane, chair of the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council, said that dealings on the U.S. front require patience — but at home, they “need to move more quickly.” Ireland, she said, must invest in infrastructure and scale its indigenous economy, particularly energy grids and data centres, if it’s to ensure its economic miracle does not go to waste. Ruane also called for expanding R&D tax credits for domestic firms and for tapping into new common strategic EU funding programs. “What really matters is that the small countries make sure their voice is heard so that this does not become a concentration,” she said, referring to the risk of larger countries capturing the lion’s share of EU support. At the same event, Martin echoed this push, unveiling new bilateral strategies for deepening ties with Germany and France. Still, he stressed that “even if others step back, Ireland will continue to engage” with the U.S. “at all levels.” Whether that strategy is enough to shield Ireland from a global reordering of corporate geography remains to be seen. Back in Dublin, however, the domestic political class has been absorbed by other matters — like a parliamentary feud over whether pro-government independents can ask questions during sessions with the Taoiseach. Meanwhile, the underlying model of Ireland’s prosperity is beginning to wobble. On the surface, the island’s economy continues to perform at an incredible growth rate. In the first three months of the year, it notched up a massive 9.1 percent rise in GDP, according to the country’s statistics agency. But the figures may be misleading. Economists and even Irish Finance Minister and Eurogroup President Paschal Donohoe say the effect was largely due to large multinationals rushing through exports to front-run Donald Trump’s April 2 U.S. tariff announcement. When the distorting effects of multinationals are stripped out of official data, the quarterly growth rate comes in at a decidedly more modest 0.8 percent, according to official figures. “It frustrates me to see what our political system is doing while Trump is unleashing an existential threat to the future prosperity of the Irish economy,” said Jim Power, an independent economist. “I’m hoping that the gravity of the threat to the Irish economy will drive policy in a better direction.”