The case, which began in 2016, has been a long and complex one, with both sides presenting strong arguments. Apple argued that it was merely a distributor of software and that it did not have the power to influence the tax rates in Ireland. The EU argued that Apple had used a complex web of subsidiaries and tax havens to avoid paying its fair share of taxes in Ireland.

This case study highlights the complexities of state aid and its impact on national economies. It demonstrates that state aid can be a double-edged sword, offering both opportunities and challenges. While it can be used to promote economic growth and development, it can also be exploited to benefit specific companies at the the expense of the broader public good. The case of Apple and Ireland illustrates the potential for state aid to be used to create a system of unfair competition.

This strategy has been successful in attracting foreign investment, but it has also come at a cost. Ireland’s economic development has been heavily reliant on foreign investment, particularly from the United States. This reliance has led to a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, while the majority of the citizens have experienced a decline in living standards.

The IFSC was designed to attract foreign banks and financial institutions, further solidifying Ireland’s position as a global financial hub. The state’s role in promoting the Irish economy was not limited to attracting foreign investment. The state also actively participated in the development of domestic industries. This was achieved through a combination of direct investment, tax breaks, and subsidies. Direct investment involved the state directly investing in new industries, often through state-owned enterprises.