The 2009 take on it in Cork, teaching 805 students in 24 schools:
http://www.ucc.ie/en/AsianSchool/News/NPCDelegationtoUCC/

Same but different, mentioning the last academic year 2011-12:
http://www.ucdcii.ie/index.php?c=project&t=project_detail&id=3&PHPSESSID=79053362f7a7024eb781c8ca0d3eaa9e

Positive meanderings at the time on the matter:
http://www.ncca.ie/en/Publications/Reports/Modern_Languages_in_the_Primary_School_Curriculum_Feasibility_and_Futures.pdf

The people I spoke to some five/six yrs ago were teaching and were very enthused. I’m sure, having looked into the matter now in 2012, that they’ve become less enthused in the interim. Is anyone enthused by the latest 2012 take on Chinese in Irish schools?

It’s a cultural problem, an inability to carry through; something that a fluency in Chinese is not going to solve. The core problem of the Irish people themselves must be solved if they wish to progress.
By the way, the Chinese have more problems than the Irish (what with American black boxes and the largest building bubble in human history).

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2009/12DEC09/021209_mandarin.html

US “fails” link here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/us-falls-in-world-education-rankings_n_793185.html

Ah… no, Des. Not quite. I paid more tax in Ireland than Google did. You must have heard of the “Double Irish and “Dutch Sandwich”?

Typically, US companies arrange for the rights to exploit intellectual property outside the United States to be owned by an offshore company. This is achieved by entering into a cost sharing agreement between the U.S. parent and the offshore company, in the terms of U.S. transfer pricing rules. The offshore company continues to receive all of the profits from exploitation of the rights outside the U.S., without paying U.S. tax on the profits unless and until they are remitted to the U.S.

It is called “The Double Irish” because it requires two Irish companies to complete the structure. The first Irish company is the offshore company which owns the valuable non-U.S. rights. This company is tax resident in a tax haven, such as the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. Irish tax law provides that a company is tax resident where its central management and control is located, not where it is incorporated, so that it is possible for the first Irish company not to be tax resident in Ireland. The first Irish company licenses the rights to a second Irish company, which is tax resident in Ireland, in return for substantial royalties or other fees. The second Irish company receives income from exploitation of the asset in countries outside the U.S., but its taxable profits are low because the royalties or fees paid to the first Irish company are deductible expenses. The remaining profits are taxed at the Irish rate of 12.5%.

The addition of a Dutch Sandwich to the Double Irish scheme further reduces tax liabilities. Ireland does not levy withholding tax on certain receipts from European Union member states. Revenues from income of sales of the products shipped by the second Irish company are first booked by a shell company in the Netherlands, taking advantage of generous tax laws there. Funds needed for production cost incurred in Ireland are transferred there, the remaining profits are transferred to the first Irish company in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. If the two Irish holding companies are thought of as “bread” and the Netherlands company as “cheese,” this scheme is referred to as the “Dutch Sandwich.” The Irish authorities never see the full revenues and hence cannot tax them, even at the low Irish corporate tax rates. There are equivalent Luxembourgeois and Swiss sandwiches.

Ireland’s university performance is hampered because we have 2 real universities and 5 runner-ups, leading to a fractured, distribution of talent. 2 universities is plenty for a country of 4 million. e.g. 7 economics departments. in different corners of the country is nonsensical and wasteful.

I did not assert ‘that the slice of spending attributable to the public sector is excessive’ rather that government spending exceeds government income and that this is a problem. This is true regardless of the size of GDP/GNP.

State spending is not all or mostly public sector pay. Welfare payments make up a higher proportion. Tax reliefs are another large component.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html

It’s not dreadful for a 4.6m population country but it’s not stunning either.

The CSO’s recent review of economic and social progress for 2008 incorporates EU-wide comparisons based on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and GNI (Gross National Income). For Ireland, these measures differ by about 14 percent. In many situations, the lower GNI is the most appropriate measure of Ireland’s output as it excludes the huge profits generated by multinationals. However, comparative studies by the EU, OECD, IMF etc. are based on GDPs which for many countries are very close to their GNI values. Consequently, their findings over- or understate Ireland’s true performance as illustrated by the following examples derived from the CSO’s review and covering the 27 EU states:

# Ireland ranked second place in terms of purchasing power per person based on GDP but fell to fifth place based on GNI.
# For capital investment, Ireland jumped from 16th place based on GDP to a much more favourable 8th position based on GNI.
Social protection expenditure based on GDP placed Ireland in 20th place. This improved to 15th based on GNI.
# For public expenditure on education, Ireland ranked 15th based on GDP but rose to a commendable 7th place for GNI.
# Ireland’s ranking for public health expenditure jumped from 17th place when related to GDP to an above-average 11th place for GNI.

Surely, domestic and international studies should assess Ireland’s performance based on GNI as well as GDP, even if only in footnotes. For example, the projected exchequer deficit for 2009 is 10.8 percent of GDP and extraordinarily high by international standards. If based on GNI, it rises to 12.7 percent and points to an even more serious position.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/2/48631582.pdf