RTÉ: Intel Ireland calls for 'Yes' to Lisbon

PopeBuckfastXVI

Intel Ireland's General Manager has said voting Yes to Lisbon would maintain Ireland's attractiveness to multi-national investors.

Jim O'Hara said US multi-nationals and international investors have viewed Ireland as playing a central role in Europe and it is one of the reasons why they have invested here.

He said anything that would enhance that perception would be a good thing and every time we create uncertainty and doubt it does not help us.

Mr O'Hara said the company's call for a Yes vote was an unusual move but he wanted to send a clear message that from a business perspective a Yes vote mattered to the future prosperity and growth of Ireland.

He said last time he and others did not speak up on this crucial issue as they believed a Yes vote was a foregone conclusion.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0820/eulisbon.html

Here we have a private company, massive employer, and reasonably representative example of the MNC sector openly asking for a 'Yes'.

This is fairly unprecedented, and shows just how seriously industry is taking this vote, and how worried they are that it may be a 'No'.

This is not scaremongering, this is reality, it's about time that people faced up to the fact that a 'No' vote is not a consequence free exercise.

ei.sdraob

tbh I cant think of any business large or small that is against Lisbon


edit:
hmm on other taught Declan Ganleys companies (he has a few) would be opposed I suppose, Lisbon probably would be bad for his military business

PopeBuckfastXVI

Quote from RTÉ above is no longer verbatim, RTÉ have a nasty habit of changing the text of an article after it's been published.

FutureTaoiseach

I'd like to know has he read the Treaty. As usual when a multinational figure comes out for Lisbon, he can't point to a single article in the Treaty he supports. Instead, he says that voting no for a third time to an EU treaty would damage the economy and points to the importance of EU membership. That is nonsensical. I have already pointed to an example of a country that didn't benefit by voting yes. We are not voting on EU membership. And it has to be questioned as to why it's only Irish personell in these multinationals who come out for Lisbon. Is patronage a factor? it is no longer good enough, as far as the Irish people are concerned, to use the argument "Europe is good - therefore vote yes". That is childish argument, akin to saying "Ireland is Good - therefore vote yes" to an amendment to the Irish Constitution, as if somehow someone voting no is anti-Irish. As a committed pro-European I will vote yes, remembering the support of the economic and political elites in this country for the Act of Union in 1800. This is another Act of Union as far as I am concerned.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I have already pointed to an example of a country that didn't benefit by voting yes.

You've been warned repeatedly about using that straw man. Banned for constant soapboxing.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... And it has to be questioned as to why it's only Irish personell in these multinationals who come out for Lisbon. Is patronage a factor? ...

I know he is gone, but I don't want to leave that disgraceful slur unchallenged.

No doubt if a representative who was not Irish had spoken, FT would have attacked that as foreigners interfering in our affairs.

O'Morris

P. Breathnach wrote:

I know he is gone, but I don't want to leave that disgraceful slur unchallenged.

I think we should be as sceptical of the motives of people like Jim O'Hara as we were of the motives of Declan Ganley. Regardless of whether he intended to or not, there's no doubt but that Jim O'Hara of Intel Ireland has done a massive favour for the Fianna Fail government. This announcement will be a huge boost to the yes campaign and to Brian Cowen's chances of remaining in government for the remainder of the year. I'm sure Brian Cowen and his government will look on it in the same way and will be very grateful for Jim O'Hara's intervention. I think Jim O'Hara of Intel Ireland probably knows how grateful Brian Cowen and his government are of his intervention.

As with Declan Ganley though I'm willing to assume that Jim O'Hara is motivated purely by what he believes to be in the best interests of his country.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

I think we should be as sceptical of the motives of people like Jim O'Hara as we were of the motives of Declan Ganley. Regardless of whether he intended to or not, there's no doubt but that Jim O'Hara of Intel Ireland has done a massive favour for the Fianna Fail government. This announcement will be a huge boost to the yes campaign and to Brian Cowen's chances of remaining in government for the remainder of the year. I'm sure Brian Cowen and his government will look on it in the same way and will be very grateful for Jim O'Hara's intervention. I think Jim O'Hara of Intel Ireland probably knows how grateful Brian Cowen and his government are of his intervention.

As with Declan Ganley though I'm willing to assume that Jim O'Hara is motivated purely by what he believes to be in the best interests of his country.

..and, in turn, let's not allow you to so casually link those two things. We're not having a referendum on Fianna Fail, we're having a referendum on Lisbon, and every indication is that Fianna Fail will no more be unseated by a negative result in this referendum than by the last, or by the Euro elections, or by the local elections.

I think it's disgraceful to pretend that a No vote will unseat Fianna Fail. We're not having a general election.

regards,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

..and, in turn, let's not allow you to so casually link those two things. We're not having a referendum on Fianna Fail, we're having a referendum on Lisbon, and every indication is that Fianna Fail will no more be unseated by a negative result in this referendum than by the last, or by the Euro elections, or by the local elections.

I didn't say that Brian Cowen's government would be unseated if the second referendum is defeated. It's a possibility though and I think the chance of it happening is much greater if the Lisbon treaty is defeated than if it's passed.

Regardless of whether they risk being kicked out of government, the consequences for the current government of a second Lisbon referendum defeat will be hugely damaging. That's why I think they must be very grateful at this latest announcement of Jim O'Hara of Intel Ireland. He's done a huge favour for them and they should be very grateful.

Macha

O'Morris wrote: »

He's done a huge favour for them and they should be very grateful.

Ah but you're not just saying that, are you O'Morris? You also said:

I think Jim O'Hara of Intel Ireland probably knows how grateful Brian Cowen and his government are of his intervention.

And the sentence that came after the above was the equivalent of insulting someone and then putting a smiley face afterwards.

Either say what you want to say or not. Don't cast unfounded aspersions and then retract them - it's disingenuous.

O'Morris

taconnol wrote:

Either say what you want to say or not. Don't cast unfounded aspersions and then retract them - it's disingenuous.

I would be horrified if anyone thought I was casting unfounded aspersions on a fine man like Jim O'Hara of Intel Ireland. I would no sooner question the motives of Jim O'Hara than I would question the motives of Declan Ganley. I believe the motives of both men are focused solely on the best interests of their country.

Macha

O'Morris wrote: »

I would be horrified if anyone thought I was casting unfounded aspersions on a fine man like Jim O'Hara of Intel Ireland. I would no sooner question the motives of Jim O'Hara than I would question the motives of Declan Ganley. I believe the motives of both men are focused solely on the best interests of their country.

I don't really see what Ganley has to do with any of this. Your attempt to involve him in the debate is rather bizarre.

My point stands: stop being disingenuous.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

I didn't say that Brian Cowen's government would be unseated if the second referendum is defeated. It's a possibility though and I think the chance of it happening is much greater if the Lisbon treaty is defeated than if it's passed.

Regardless of whether they risk being kicked out of government, the consequences for the current government of a second Lisbon referendum defeat will be hugely damaging. That's why I think they must be very grateful at this latest announcement of Jim O'Hara of Intel Ireland. He's done a huge favour for them and they should be very grateful.

Well, why not just say you want to say it but don't want to defend it? That's exactly what you're doing, after all.

amused,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

O'Morris wrote: »

As with Declan Ganley though I'm willing to assume that Jim O'Hara is motivated purely by what he believes to be in the best interests of his country.

Actually since he would not have made this announcement without the approval of higher-ups in Intel I think we can assume that the Intel corporation believes that Lisbon would have positive benefits for the global economy, and that a failure to pass Lisbon would have negative effects.

I'm sure Joe Higgins would argue that we should not listen to such capitalists, but no one can seriously doubt the message being sent here. A yes will lean towards a positive business climate, a no will lean towards a negative business climate (due to political uncertainty).

Intel is not claiming specific problems or benefits and neither am I. As others have written before it's about a delicate weighing scales. Which answer is more likely to promote a better economy?

Ix

O'Morris

ixtlan wrote: »

I'm sure Joe Higgins would argue that we should not listen to such capitalists

We should listen to views of capitalists like Declan Ganley and Jim O'Hara but we should be suspicious of their motives at the same time. It's not the job of a general manager of a major multinational to make public statements on what he believes to be in the best interests of his country. His responsibility is his company and unless he can state clearly how the interests of his company will be affected by the outcome of then referendum then he should keep his views to himself. He should not use his position as the general manager of a major multinational to try to influence the views of the electorate on an issue that is unlikely to have any direct impact on how his company operates.

As I've said, I think we should be as sceptical of the motives of Jim O'Hara as we were of the motives of Declan Ganley.

P. Breathnach

O'Morris wrote: »

We should listen to views of capitalists like Declan Ganley and Jim O'Hara but we should be suspicious of their motives at the same time. It's not the job of a general manager of a major multinational to make public statements on what he believes to be in the best interests of his country. His responsibility is his company and unless he can state clearly how the interests of his company will be affected by the outcome of then referendum then he should keep his views to himself. He should not use his position as the general manager of a major multinational to try to influence the views of the electorate on an issue that is unlikely to have any direct impact on how his company operates.

As I've said, I think we should be as sceptical of the motives of Jim O'Hara as we were of the motives of Declan Ganley.

You persist in mentioning O'Hara and Ganley in the same sentence, as if their participation in public affairs is in some way similar. That is a distortion, and as it has already been questioned here, I am driven to the conclusion that it is intentional distortion -- low propaganda.

What is this strange principle under which an Irish citizen employed by a major corporation should not be allowed take part in public debate?

gizmo555

Scofflaw wrote: »

..and, in turn, let's not allow you to so casually link those two things. We're not having a referendum on Fianna Fail, we're having a referendum on Lisbon, and every indication is that Fianna Fail will no more be unseated by a negative result in this referendum than by the last, or by the Euro elections, or by the local elections.

Fianna Fáil might not be unseated, but there is a good chance Brian Cowen would be - the first no vote did serious damage to his credibility as a leader, a second would destroy it.

O'Morris

P. Breathnach wrote:

You persist in mentioning O'Hara and Ganley in the same sentence, as if their participation in public affairs is in some way similar.

I didn't say there was any similarity between them. I just think we should be prepared to question the motives of both men. What motives besides the best interests of his country could have motivated Declan Ganley to persuade people to vote no to the treaty? What motives besides the best interests of his country and his company could have motivated Jim O'Hara to persuade people to vote yes to the treaty?

P. Breathnach wrote:

What is this strange principle under which an Irish citizen employed by a major corporation should not be allowed take part in public debate?

He has every right to take part in a public debate as a private citizen. Speaking in his capacity as a manager of a major corporation is a different matter. If the general manager of Intel Ireland believes that a no to the Lisbon treaty will be bad for his company then he has every right to make his views known. It's different when the same general manager speaks in his capacity as a general manager and to tries to persuade people to vote yes to the treaty because he believes it will be in the best interests of his country and its economic future. As he himself said this is an unusual move for someone in his position to make. Because of that I I would like to see Jim O'Hara's motives being treated with the same degree of suspicion as the motives of Declan Ganley were treated.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

...I would like to see Jim O'Hara's motives being treated with the same degree of suspicion as the motives of Declan Ganley were treated.

The two are not comparable. Declan Ganley created a political movement and put a lot of his own money into it, all the way up to standing for election. Jim O'Hara has expressed a view.

When Jim O'Hara starts a political party, I'll treat his views with the same degree of suspicion as Declan Ganley.

Hitman Actual

gizmo555 wrote: »

Fianna Fáil might not be unseated, but there is a good chance Brian Cowen would be - the first no vote did serious damage to his credibility as a leader, a second would destroy it.

Regarding Cowen being unseated, how would this come about though? (And I'm asking purely from ignorance of the mechanisms involved). Would he have to offer to step down, or would the party push for his removal? Or would there be a wider political push for his removal? In any case, I really don't see much difference in what would be required for the government to fall, or just Cowen to lose the top job.

Hitman Actual

Regarding the OP, this is a serious boost to the Yes campaign. One question though: O'Hara talks about Intel promoting a Yes vote to the tune of possibly €200K- what funding guidelines are they required to follow?

O'Morris

I think the banning of FutureTaoiseach was unjustified. Can someone please unban him?

P. Breathnach

O'Morris wrote: »

I didn't say there was any similarity between them. I just think we should be prepared to question the motives of both men. What motives besides the best interests of his country could have motivated Declan Ganley to persuade people to vote no to the treaty? What motives besides the best interests of his country and his company could have motivated Jim O'Hara to persuade people to vote yes to the treaty?

Ganley has been discredited in the eyes of many. By expressly drawing a parallel between O'Hara and Ganley, you are attempting to tar O'Hara with the Ganley brush. And you persist in doing it, which suggests to me that your motives are malicious.

He has every right to take part in a public debate as a private citizen. Speaking in his capacity as a manager of a major corporation is a different matter. If the general manager of Intel Ireland believes that a no to the Lisbon treaty will be bad for his company then he has every right to make his views known. It's different when the same general manager speaks in his capacity as a general manager and to tries to persuade people to vote yes to the treaty because he believes it will be in the best interests of his country and its economic future. As he himself said this is an unusual move for someone in his position to make.

Who, other than you, claims that he is speaking in his capacity as General Manager? O'Hara is a public figure because of his role in a major business. He is qualified, from experience, to comment on the attitudes or expectations or wishes of MNCs, including the likely impact of whatever we decide about Lisbon. Is he to be precluded from sharing that perspective with us? Do you propose to deny him his right to freedom of expression?

It is sad that I have to argue about this, because you are spouting bollocks. My fear is that somebody might actually believe you.

Because of that I I would like to see Jim O'Hara's motives being treated with the same degree of suspicion as the motives of Declan Ganley were treated.

There you go again. O'Hara is quite frank about things. Ganley was not.

Hitman Actual

O'Morris wrote: »

I think the banning of FutureTaoiseach was unjustified. Can someone please unban him?

Lol at you thinking this is the place to post that. You've been around long enough.

Skyuser

ei.sdraob wrote: »

tbh I cant think of any business large or small that is against Lisbon


edit:
hmm on other taught Declan Ganleys companies (he has a few) would be opposed I suppose, Lisbon probably would be bad for his military business

He has a communications business. One of his clients is the military. Don't spin it.

Martin 2

O'Morris wrote: »

...It's not the job of a general manager of a major multinational to make public statements on what he believes to be in the best interests of his country.

If you read the article that Pope referenced you will see that Jim O'Hara talks mainly about the effect of a No on the MNC sector rather than it's effect on Ireland in general but what if what's in the the best interests of the Irish based multinationals and their employees is also in the best interest of the country, is he still not entitled to talk. For example the multinational sector accounts for over 80% of our exports and employs over 200,000 people directly and indirectly and pays billions of Euros in taxes from exports and through their employees.... so clearly the MNC sector is critical for the well being of the Irish economy.

O'Morris wrote: »

His responsibility is his company and unless he can state clearly how the interests of his company will be affected by the outcome of then referendum then he should keep his views to himself. He should not use his position as the general manager of a major multinational to try to influence the views of the electorate on an issue that is unlikely to have any direct impact on how his company operates.

But he has numerous times (I've posted on this before) and without the ability to time travel he couldn't be more clear about the effect of a final No vote. Remember that MNC's need continual investment to maintain their operations in Ireland, Intel especially, for example, as higher density semiconductor fabrication processes become available (65nm, 45nm) the Irish operation has to compete with other locations for these processes otherwise the Irish operation gets relegated (or worse). Imagine you are the MD of the Irish operation of a multinational and you are visiting the US boardroom to look for future investment, which would you prefer to have in your possession a Yes or a No vote. Remember also that our competitors would have no qualms about using our No against us.

Voting yes won't guarantee that we can maintain existing and attract further MNC's however it is far more likely to help than a No... in my 7 weeks on boards I have yet to see an argument that a No is better for the multinational sector than a yes

ei.sdraob

Ireland must stay at heart of EU
I take issue with a number of claims made by Bruce Arnold in relation to the Lisbon Treaty (Irish Independent, August 17).

The main point I would like to respond to, however, is his assertion that the benefits accrued from EU membership would in no way be "at risk or threatened" by a further rejection of the treaty. Such a remark is nothing short of cavalier.

This week, a number of business groups, including IBEC, Chambers Ireland, the Small Firms Association and the Irish Exports Associations, united in supporting Lisbon on the grounds that it would be key to Ireland's economic future.

As a former member of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, I have seen first hand how multinationals select destinations for investment. Ireland offers many attractions to potential investors but chief among them is our commitment to the single market and the gateway this provides to over 500,000 million consumers throughout the EU.

Ireland needs to remain at the heart of Europe in order to promote itself as an attractive destination for FDI. Contrary to Mr Arnold's claim, another 'No' vote would most certainly put this in jeopardy.

Eoin Ryan

Sandymount, Dublin 4

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/ireland-must-stay-at-heart-of-eu-1866039.html?service=Print

He has a communications business. One of his clients is the military. Don't spin it.

his communications business would not exist if there weren't any wars or disasters

watch the video on the linked page and watch his eyes light up when he talks of the "business opportunity" he spotted on sept11

he only sprung to mind as I cant think of any other companies who are behind NO

theres no spin that the facts known, make what you want of it

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0820/eulisbon.html

Here we have a private company, massive employer, and reasonably representative example of the MNC sector openly asking for a 'Yes'.

This is fairly unprecedented, and shows just how seriously industry is taking this vote, and how worried they are that it may be a 'No'.

This is not scaremongering, this is reality, it's about time that people faced up to the fact that a 'No' vote is not a consequence free exercise.

Sorry heard that broadcast the other morning and to give a full context EU is/was involved a case against Intel (link posted below)
Yes the industry is taking it seriously but lets be clear that industry's like Intel some times seek to gain an unfair advantage.
This also happened with Microsoft where they sought to strengthen their monopoly through the supply of their software.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124967239079915187.html

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

Sorry heard that broadcast the other morning and to give a full context EU is/was involved a case against Intel (link posted below)
Yes the industry is taking it seriously but lets be clear that industry's like Intel some times seek to gain an unfair advantage.
This also happened with Microsoft where they sought to strengthen their monopoly through the supply of their software.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124967239079915187.html

funny how despite the EU finding Intel for abuse of monopoly (against AMD), they still support the EU


Intel need access to EU market (the biggest in world) and they realize that Lisbon might harm irelands position within the EU both politically and economically

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

funny how despite the EU finding Intel for abuse of monopoly (against AMD), they still support the EU


Intel need access to EU market (the biggest in world) and they realize that Lisbon might harm irelands position within the EU both politically and economically

Yes I thought that was strange. Supporting a treaty while EU is involved in a case against them.
Maybe pros outweighed the cons.

limklad

ei.sdraob wrote: »

funny how despite the EU finding Intel for abuse of monopoly (against AMD), they still support the EU


Intel need access to EU market (the biggest in world) and they realize that Lisbon might harm irelands position within the EU both politically and economically

How does not having the Lisbon Treaty effect Intel interest in the EU? So stop spreading that blatant lie and is just as bad as libertas as their lie about commissioners and Military.

There is nothing in the treaty about the economy. The treaty is about re-jigging the decision-making of the EU as stated to be more streamline. Even though the current system is not prefect, I do not see any major problems with the current decision making system.
There is nothing extra about the common market or the Euro that will increase their growth nor is their growth be effect if we reject the Lisbon Treaty. O'Hara does not give reasons to support his stance.

I refer you to the 17 February 2009 press conference about what would happen if there a second NO from Intel Chairman Craig Barrett.
[quote=rte.ie Sean Whelan's Interview of Intel Chairman Craig Barrett]
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0217/barretttranscript.html
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 17:23


Finally, there's been some concern expressed in government circles that multinationals like yours may be worried about Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty. That if there's a second vote 'No' on the Lisbon Treaty that multinationals like yours might consider leaving the country. Is that a concern for you?
No, there's not been the concern for us leaving the country as the Irish people express their will. And I'm not an Irish citizen so it's probably not appropriate for me to comment on whether Ireland should vote Yea or Nay on the EU Constitution. But, you know, the European Union has developed into a powerful economic zone but it's really something for the Europeans to decide in the future and not for US citizens to comment on that.
[/quote]

Business only grow when there is demand for their product not because of a treaty. They move locations when treaties effect them robbing them of profits. With or without Lisbon that is not going to happen here in Ireland.

Dell for example moved their Manufacturing operations to Poland, not because or any treaty but high operating costs here that effects their profits.

The 1 billion euros fine in July from the EU commission is definitely a big incentive to support the Treaty to keep the EU commission of their backs and to get EU leaders on their side for any future decisions relating to them. Next we will hear that Microsoft will be supporting the Treaty to get the EU commission off their backs about monopolies in the EU markets

ei.sdraob

limklad wrote: »

How does not having the Lisbon Treaty effect Intel interest in the EU? So stop spreading that blatant lie and is just as bad as libertas as their lie about commissioners and Military.

There is nothing in the treaty about the economy.

what are you talking about?

confidence in business or lack of it will have an impact on economy, Intel, Ryanair + other business groups/companies are not backing Lisbon for political reasons but economical ones, any impact on confidence is bad for business, their business

read the Treaty again, the common energy policy point is directly related to improving economies of all states via a common policy

limklad wrote: »

Business only grow when there is demand for their product not because of a treaty.

good think you dont run a business so, go back commerce 101,
demand is not the only variable in business, just because theres demand doesnt mean theres money or will to spend money > analogy theres constant demand for gold but not everyone can afford it

limklad wrote: »

Dell for example moved their Manufacturing operations to Poland, not because or any treaty but high operating costs here that effects their profits.

Tell me if you are a big MNC would you invest in Ireland if the country appears to be run by muppets and the people contradict themselves? thats uncertainty for you, uncertainty is bad, uncertainty in the markets and the system send the stock markets to the bottom last year

voting NO does not provide stability and certainty that businesses require, and will not help business during these terrible times


/

limklad

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what are you talking about?

confidence in business or lack of it will have an impact on economy, Intel, Ryanair + other business groups/companies are not backing Lisbon for political reasons but economical ones, any impact on confidence is bad for business, their business

read the Treaty again, the common energy policy point is directly related to improving economies of all states via a common policy




good think you dont run a business so, go back commerce 101,
demand is not the only variable in business, just because theres demand doesnt mean theres money or will to spend money > analogy theres constant demand for gold but not everyone can afford it

Tell me if you are a big MNC would you invest in Ireland if the country appears to be run by muppets and the people contradict themselves? thats uncertainty for you, uncertainty is bad, uncertainty in the markets and the system send the stock markets to the bottom last year

voting NO does not provide stability and certainty that businesses require, and will not help business during these terrible times


/

I do not know what you are talking about, again you are jumping to assumptions and no facts to back your comments!!

Energy policies can be independently created by EU member states as well as within the EU structures under the current European Treaties. EU Members can already come together under enhance cooperation under NICE treaty, There is nothing stopping them from doing so. They have already look and started promoting extra piplines of oil and gas into the EU bypassing problematic countries, without the Lisbon Treaty. They have already put out directives promoting renewable and limiting carbon emissions, without the Lisbon Treaty.
So you logic is flawed.

As for country run by muppets that is responsibility of the electorate under democratic principles for which the EU highly support and actively promote, unless you are suggesting a directorship type rule! because you do not like the current system then run for office at the next election, that how Hilter got elected when he too taught that his country was run by muppets and was the cause for Germany failures.


Lack in confidence in business is due the global recession by poor credit and overinflated housing markets, bad loans by banks and locally bad policies by our own government not by failing to Ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

ei.sdraob

limklad wrote: »

I do not know what you are talking about, again you are jumping to assumptions and no facts to back your comments!!

Energy policies can be independently created by EU member states as well as within the EU structures under the current European Treaties. EU Members can already come together under enhance cooperation under NICE treaty, There is nothing stopping them from doing so. They have already look and started promoting extra piplines of oil and gas into the EU bypassing problematic countries, without the Lisbon Treaty. They have already put out directives promoting renewable and limiting carbon emissions, without the Lisbon Treaty.
So you logic is flawed.

yet despite that Russia and other energy suppliers are still playing of each country in EU against the other and leading to higher energy, this is crucial for Ireland as we are the last quite literary at the end of the pipeline and are small player

limklad wrote: »

As for country run by muppets that is responsibility of the electorate under democratic principles for which the EU highly support and actively promote, unless you are suggesting a directorship type rule! because you do not like the current system then run for office at the next election, that how Hilter got elected when he too taught that his country was run by muppets and was the cause for Germany failures.
.

I was referring to how would it look to EU members and other states the people electing Pro Lisbon MEPs only two months ago, a Pro Lisbon government 2 years ago, with the opposition being Pro Lisbon as well, with only 1 far fringe unpopular party opposing Lisbon (as they have opposed every single other EU treaty up to and including joining the EU) , these people rejecting the modified treaty (to meet previous concerns such as commissioner issue and irrelevant abortion issue) again

that sends conflicting messages and creates confusion, confusion brews uncertainty, uncertainty is bad for everyone, capiche?

limklad wrote: »

Lack in confidence in business is due the global recession by poor credit and overinflated housing markets, bad loans by banks and locally bad policies by our own government not by failing to Ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

exactly but failing to ratify again would not help the matters in any manner, there is no status quo by voting No, there will be direct and indirect effects

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

How does not having the Lisbon Treaty effect Intel interest in the EU? So stop spreading that blatant lie and is just as bad as libertas as their lie about commissioners and Military.

You might be better directing that question to Intel. If Lisbon doesn't affect Intel, why are they bothering to take a stand on it?

limklad wrote: »

There is nothing in the treaty about the economy. The treaty is about re-jigging the decision-making of the EU as stated to be more streamline. Even though the current system is not prefect, I do not see any major problems with the current decision making system.
There is nothing extra about the common market or the Euro that will increase their growth nor is their growth be effect if we reject the Lisbon Treaty. O'Hara does not give reasons to support his stance.

Actually, there's about 16 changed articles that are relevant to the common market - 3 TEU, 3 TFEU, 4 TFEU, 26 TFEU, 81 TFEU, 108 TFEU, 113 TFEU, 118 TFEU, 119 TFEU, 134 TFEU, 143 TFEU, 144 TFEU, 175 TFEU, 179 TFEU, 194 TFEU, and the Irish Guarantees.

limklad wrote: »

I refer you to the 17 February 2009 press conference about what would happen if there a second NO from Intel Chairman Craig Barrett.

Business only grow when there is demand for their product not because of a treaty. They move locations when treaties effect them robbing them of profits. With or without Lisbon that is not going to happen here in Ireland.

Dell for example moved their Manufacturing operations to Poland, not because or any treaty but high operating costs here that effects their profits.

The 1 billion euros fine in July from the EU commission is definitely a big incentive to support the Treaty to keep the EU commission of their backs and to get EU leaders on their side for any future decisions relating to them. Next we will hear that Microsoft will be supporting the Treaty to get the EU commission off their backs about monopolies in the EU markets

So, in essence your claim is that Intel are supporting Lisbon because they've been fined by the Commission, and that supporting Lisbon will cause the Commission to leave them alone in future? They won't press the little matter of the billion euro, perhaps?

You know what they say - pull the other one, it has bells on. Rather than claiming that there's nothing about the economy in Lisbon, when there is, and that Intel are probably supporting it because they've been fined by the Commission, which makes you look ridiculous, why not just deal with the fact that most of the MNCs in Ireland do think Lisbon's a good idea, and ask whether that's something that's a proper yardstick?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

Scofflaw wrote: »

You might be better directing that question to Intel. If Lisbon doesn't affect Intel, why are they bothering to take a stand on it?



Actually, there's about 16 changed articles that are relevant to the common market - 3 TEU, 3 TFEU, 4 TFEU, 26 TFEU, 81 TFEU, 108 TFEU, 113 TFEU, 118 TFEU, 119 TFEU, 134 TFEU, 143 TFEU, 144 TFEU, 175 TFEU, 179 TFEU, 194 TFEU, and the Irish Guarantees.



So, in essence your claim is that Intel are supporting Lisbon because they've been fined by the Commission, and that supporting Lisbon will cause the Commission to leave them alone in future? They won't press the little matter of the billion euro, perhaps?

You know what they say - pull the other one, it has bells on. Rather than claiming that there's nothing about the economy in Lisbon, when there is, and that Intel are probably supporting it because they've been fined by the Commission, which makes you look ridiculous, why not just deal with the fact that most of the MNCs in Ireland do think Lisbon's a good idea, and ask whether that's something that's a proper yardstick?

cordially,
Scofflaw

See your point but RTE host on Morning Ireland did bring this up with Intel spokesman the other morning. About the EU case. There must have a reason for introducing it into the discussion.

P. Breathnach

bayviewclose wrote: »

See your point but RTE host on Morning Ireland did bring this up with Intel spokesman the other morning. About the EU case. There must have a reason for introducing it into the discussion.

Well, don't keep us in suspense: tell us what the point was.

Spiritoftheseventies

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Well, don't keep us in suspense: tell us what the point was.

That perhaps if Intel promote this treaty, that maybe EU may go easy on them. Thats the initial conclusion i drew from it.

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

That perhaps if Intel promote this treaty, that maybe EU may go easy on them. Thats the initial conclusion i drew from it.

You mean they would earn the Commission's goodwill, or that they have done a deal with the Commission? Or the same, with the member states?

cordially,
Scofflaw

fearcruach

bayviewclose wrote: »

That perhaps if Intel promote this treaty, that maybe EU may go easy on them. Thats the initial conclusion i drew from it.

Intel were fined 1 billion euro. The EU would not let something like that slide. If Intel do promote the Treaty for 200k as was quoted that would be a pretty sweet deal for them.

I think it's definately how important Lisbon is to MNC. If the EU move away from Ireland and proceed by themselves it possibly decreases the access for MNC's based in Ireland to European market which would be a disaster. I think this is their motivation, nothing sinister.

Spiritoftheseventies

fearcruach wrote: »

Intel were fined 1 billion euro. The EU would not let something like that slide. If Intel do promote the Treaty for 200k as was quoted that would be a pretty sweet deal for them.

I think it's definately how important Lisbon is to MNC. If the EU move away from Ireland and proceed by themselves it possibly decreases the access for MNC's based in Ireland to European market which would be a disaster. I think this is their motivation, nothing sinister.

Okay flip side. If you are MNC and EU slaps you with a hefty fine. The last thing you would want to be doing is promoting a treaty.

fearcruach

bayviewclose wrote: »

Okay flip side. If you are MNC and EU slaps you with a hefty fine. The last thing you would want to be doing is promoting a treaty.

Yes it offers a slight advantage. However it really isn't an issue because Intel will never again be in a position to get fined again. As AMD are their only main competitor and now that this ruling has gone through it's done and dusted. Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted comes to mind.

Spiritoftheseventies

fearcruach wrote: »

Yes it offers a slight advantage. However it really isn't an issue because Intel will never again be in a position to get fined again. As AMD are their only main competitor and now that this ruling has gone through it's done and dusted. Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted comes to mind.

From same story i posted on previous page.
"Complaining to the ombudsman, who is known for thorough and relatively rapid investigations but usually sets his sights on smaller-bore targets, is a rare step in an antitrust case. Irish budget carrier Ryanair HoldingsPLC, a frequent antagonist of EU authorities, alleged in 2007 that the commission had leaked documents related to its never-consummated merger with Aer Lingusto the press. The ombudsman didn't support the allegation but requested the commission tighten up its confidentiality procedures"

So we have two cases of companies in conflict with EU pushing this treaty. And they are doing this why?

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

From same story i posted on previous page.
"Complaining to the ombudsman, who is known for thorough and relatively rapid investigations but usually sets his sights on smaller-bore targets, is a rare step in an antitrust case. Irish budget carrier Ryanair HoldingsPLC, a frequent antagonist of EU authorities, alleged in 2007 that the commission had leaked documents related to its never-consummated merger with Aer Lingusto the press. The ombudsman didn't support the allegation but requested the commission tighten up its confidentiality procedures"

So we have two cases of companies in conflict with EU pushing this treaty. And they are doing this why?

Any theories yourself?

The most obvious one would be that they feel a Yes vote will be good for business.

Hitman Actual

marco_polo wrote: »

Any theories yourself?

The most obvious one would be that they feel a Yes vote will be good for business.

Indeed. Here's a few videos of Jim himself explaining his/Intels position- it seems quite reasonable to me. But then again, I'm not partial to wearing the ol' tin-foil hat.

Spiritoftheseventies

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Indeed. Here's a few videos of Jim himself explaining his/Intels position- it seems quite reasonable to me. But then again, I'm not partial to wearing the ol' tin-foil hat.

Yes a lot of general statements there. Ireland being a key play in Europe. Nothing new there.
But 'm asking if Intel was seeking to gain an unfair advantage through the distribution of its chip and then it is alleged that documentation was witheld by the EU commission during that case.
And Ryan air also unhappy about EU and the proposed takeover/merger with Aer Lingus which never happened.
So why push for a treaty when the EU is clearly at odds with them over certain practices. And I think for the sake of balance OP should have mentioned the EU case when bringing up Intel as RTE did in their news clip.

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes a lot of general statements there. Ireland being a key play in Europe. Nothing new there.
But 'm asking if Intel was seeking to gain an unfair advantage through the distribution of its chip and then it is alleged that documentation was witheld by the EU commission during that case.
And Ryan air also unhappy about EU and the proposed takeover/merger with Aer Lingus which never happened.
So why push for a treaty when the EU is clearly at odds with them over certain practices. And I think for the sake of balance OP should have mentioned the EU case when bringing up Intel as RTE did in their news clip.

If you have something you want to say then why not say it?

You have asked on a number of occasions why they are looking for yes, and like the vast majori of other business in this country who hold a similar view the most likely explanation is that they think it will be beneficial for the economy or business.

Hitman Actual

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes a lot of general statements there. Ireland being a key play in Europe. Nothing new there.
But 'm asking if Intel was seeking to gain an unfair advantage through the distribution of its chip and then it is alleged that documentation was witheld by the EU commission during that case.
And Ryan air also unhappy about EU and the proposed takeover/merger with Aer Lingus which never happened.
So why push for a treaty when the EU is clearly at odds with them over certain practices. And I think for the sake of balance OP should have mentioned the EU case when bringing up Intel as RTE did in their news clip.

Being an Electronic Engineer I followed the Intel case quite closely, and I honestly think linking the anti-trust case to Intel's support for Lisbon is bizarre. So what if the Commission is at odds with Intel over competition issues? Does that mean that Intel Ireland can't come out and support something completely unrelated which they feel will benefit its dealings with the European market? Honestly, these allegations wouldn't even come close to making a thread worthy of the crack-pot conspiracy theory forum.

As for O'Leary, last week after his pledge of support for Lisbon, he was still attacking the Commission, and said that he will continue to attack them for as long as he doesn't agree with whatever policies he has issues with. This is not a guy who expects to get any favours from the Commission, or from anyone else for that matter.

Spiritoftheseventies

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Being an Electronic Engineer I followed the Intel case quite closely, and I honestly think linking the anti-trust case to Intel's support for Lisbon is bizarre. So what if the Commission is at odds with Intel over competition issues? Does that mean that Intel Ireland can't come out and support something completely unrelated which they feel will benefit its dealings with the European market? Honestly, these allegations wouldn't even come close to making a thread worthy of the crack-pot conspiracy theory forum.

As for O'Leary, last week after his pledge of support for Lisbon, he was still attacking the Commission, and said that he will continue to attack them for as long as he doesn't agree with whatever policies he has issues with. This is not a guy who expects to get any favours from the Commission, or from anyone else for that matter.

Okay so what did you make of the case. Did Intel try to gain an unfair advantage that the commission accused them of and were Intel treated fairly by the commission?

Hitman Actual

bayviewclose wrote: »

Okay so what did you make of the case. Did Intel try to gain an unfair advantage that the commission accused them of and were Intel treated fairly by the commission?

My opinion is that, yes, Intel absolutely did gain an unfair advantage in their actions. As to whether they were treated unfairly by the Commission, I think you're referring to some 'interview evidence' given by Dell where they said they were buying Intel chips as they were superior in quality to AMD CPU's, and that particular evidence wasn't considered by the court? On the face of it, that looks like an oversight, but I also don't think that Dell are being truthful in saying that the Intel product was better, because in the first half of this decade the AMD technology had caught up with Intel technology, and was superior in a lot of ways. (The anti-trust case deals with 2002-2005, iirc). For example, I was building PC's in 2003 with an AMD Athlon 64 which was more powerful, consumed lower power, had better gaming performance and was cheaper than the comparable Intel CPU's. Intel CPU's were better at multimedia processing, but in general AMD were kicking Intel's ass at the time. Intel caught up again with its Core 2 Duo and Quad CPU's since about 2005 (and is way ahead now again), but it's possible that the rebate policy they employed helped them get back to the top.

So I think Intel got what it deserved, tbh.

Spiritoftheseventies

Hitman Actual wrote: »

My opinion is that, yes, Intel absolutely did gain an unfair advantage in their actions. As to whether they were treated unfairly by the Commission, I think you're referring to some 'interview evidence' given by Dell where they said they were buying Intel chips as they were superior in quality to AMD CPU's, and that particular evidence wasn't considered by the court? On the face of it, that looks like an oversight, but I also don't think that Dell are being truthful in saying that the Intel product was better, because in the first half of this decade the AMD technology had caught up with Intel technology, and was superior in a lot of ways. (The anti-trust case deals with 2002-2005, iirc). For example, I was building PC's in 2003 with an AMD Athlon 64 which was more powerful, consumed lower power, had better gaming performance and was cheaper than the comparable Intel CPU's. Intel CPU's were better at multimedia processing, but in general AMD were kicking Intel's ass at the time. Intel caught up again with its Core 2 Duo and Quad CPU's since about 2005 (and is way ahead now again), but it's possible that the rebate policy they employed helped them get back to the top.

So I think Intel got what it deserved, tbh.

Thanks for info on that. Now from a subsequent article. text from opening paraagraph's on an appeal from Intel. Regardless of why they pushing for a Yes vote, should they be pushing for one giving that they are still involved in legal proceedings here. Given that this case is behind close doors it seems that Intel wants to have its cake and eat it

To quote from text below

"A company spokesman confirmed the company is raising human-rights issues, but he didn't provide details. It will be more than a year before the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg rules".

If they feel they have been untreated fairly we should know why. Full disclosure in other words.
End and and be all, of all the MNC's why would Yes Campaign endorse a lobby that is not exactly unblemished in its business dealings. Any way text from opening bars below with link to article provided.


Intel Fine Jolts Tech Sector (5/14/09)

BRUSSELS -- Intel Corp. appealed a billion-euro antitrust fine Wednesday. That was expected. But among the chip giant's arguments is an unlikely complaint: Its human rights were violated.

Intel isn't alone. A growing list of companies are raising the charge that the EU's vigorous antitrust watchdog is running afoul of protections afforded by European human-rights law. The companies argue they have a right to have their case heard in a court instead of an administrative body.




When the EU's antitrust body handles a case, it both investigates and renders judgment. The companies say they don't have a full opportunity to defend themselves against the charges, as they would in a court.

The human-rights maneuver is something of a Hail Mary pass -- no EU antitrust appeal has won on the argument. Intel's precise legal arguments aren't known; under EU procedure, court case files are closed to public inspection. A company spokesman confirmed the company is raising human-rights issues, but he didn't provide details. It will be more than a year before the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg rules.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124826913522171933.html