Intel & Ryanair Yes Campaigns - An Open Question.

isocket

I have just seen an intel pro-yes campaign poster & you are all aware of Ryanair's 500'000 Euro Yes campaign.
Regardless of whether you are a Yes or No vote to Lisbon.
Does corporate 'intervention' in the franchise of a nation lead to healthy democratic debate?

Sam Vimes

About as much as the intervention of anyone other than our democratically elected representatives. I don't really mind anyone getting involved as long as what they're saying is true.

They are in the debate because no campaigners are trying to play down the idea that a yes vote will help the economy by saying it's just government scaremongering so some of the biggest players in our economy are coming out to say that it's a legitimate point. I welcome their input

OldJay

isocket wrote: »

Does corporate 'intervention' in the franchise of a nation lead to healthy democratic debate?

As credibly as, if not more than, any unelected campaign group.

sink

Although I'm a avid yes supporter I think commercial organisations getting involved in political campaigns is a very dangerous precedent. All you have to look at is the healthcare reform debate taking place in the US to see how private commercial interests can have a serious detrimental effect on rational & factually informed public debates.

isocket

Sam Vimes wrote: »

About as much as the intervention of anyone other than our democratically elected representatives. I don't really mind anyone getting involved as long as what they're saying is true.

They are in the debate because no campaigners are trying to play down the idea that a yes vote will help the economy by saying it's just government scaremongering so some of the biggest players in our economy are coming out to say that it's a legitimate point. I welcome their input

You welcome it because it suits your point of view.
That does not make it healthy.
It perverts the debate as there is an implication that a NO vote will lead to these corporates leaving the country.

marco_polo

isocket wrote: »

I have just seen an intel pro-yes campaign poster & you are all aware of Ryanair's 500'000 Euro Yes campaign.
Regardless of whether you are a Yes or No vote to Lisbon.
Does corporate 'intervention' in the franchise of a nation lead to healthy democratic debate?

I think that business should have a right to voice an opinion on matters that concern them.

As for the amount spent I do not have an issue personally with it, since the source of the money is not secretive. But there probably a vaild debate to be had on that point.

Edit: I have no idea what a campaign costs to run so I have no opinion of the ballpark figure that such a limit should be.

OldJay

isocket wrote: »

You welcome it because it suits your point of view. That does not make it healthy

Why did you ask the question in the first place if you're going to reply to the first post contrary to your point of view with a stock answer?

Know what stifles conclusion of a debate? Lies. Any old dross can stimulate debate. Its the conclusion that matters.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

Although I'm a avid yes supporter I think commercial organisations getting involved in political campaigns is a very dangerous precedent. All you have to look at is the healthcare reform debate taking place in the US to see how private commercial interests can have a serious detrimental effect on rational & factually informed public debates.

I would agree with this up to a point, that point being that Intel et al are effectively corporate citizens of Ireland, and as such there is a case to be made for them voting on an issue they feel affects them. On the other hand, I think this referendum is setting new lows in all kinds of directions, in particular over who's getting involved and how the campaigns have been funded - I reiterate my preference for a complete ban on referendum campaigns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

97i9y3941

must be something in it for ryanair+intel if they want people to pass this...

Sam Vimes

isocket wrote: »

You welcome it because it suits your point of view.
That does not make it healthy.
It perverts the debate as there is an implication that a NO vote will lead to these corporates leaving the country.

That's a simplistic way of looking at it. All they're saying is that they think a yes vote will benefit the economy. They are adding weight to the government campaign which is making the same statements but which are being dismissed as lies. It's harder to dismiss Intel and Ryanair when they say it will help the economy. And I'm waiting for your thread asking if all the unelected groups on the no side are adding to a healthy debate...

isocket

Fred83 wrote: »

must be something in it for ryanair+intel if they want people to pass this...

Obviously.
Is that healthy, or even, ethical, to allow huge & massively wealthy corporations to influence public opinion in a democracy of which their only loyalty is profit?

marco_polo

Fred83 wrote: »

must be something in it for ryanair+intel if they want people to pass this...

Like what?

humanji

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would agree with this up to a point, that point being that Intel et al are effectively corporate citizens of Ireland, and as such there is a case to be made for them voting on an issue they feel affects them. On the other hand, I think this referendum is setting new lows in all kinds of directions, in particular over who's getting involved and how the campaigns have been funded - I reiterate my preference for a complete ban on referendum campaigns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd love to see a complete ban on referendum campaigns. Sadly, I can't imagine it ever happening and even if it did, there's be an endless tirade of people accuse the government of trying to silence the opposition. I'd be happy with a blanket ban on political posters. At least that way, if you want to avoid the debate altogether, you won't have to deal with all those eyesores.

sink

To clarify, I wouldn't have a problem with a business stating it's view, but actually campaigning and putting up posters is a step beyond my comfort zone.

isocket

sink wrote: »

To clarify, I wouldn't have a problem with a business stating it's view, but actually campaigning and putting up posters is a step beyond my comfort zone.

Agreed.
So what does corporate intervention in a national franchise tell us specifically about the Lisbon Treaty?

spank_inferno

I agree with the jist of posters here.

Once it remains honest and respectfull I've no problem with it either.

sink

isocket wrote: »

Agreed.
So what does corporate intervention in a national franchise tell us specifically about the Lisbon Treaty?

Nothing in and of itself. Just because commercial interests can be devious does not necessarily mean they are. I don't think intel and ryanair have anything to gain commercially from Lisbon beyond the strengthening of the EU single market.

isocket

sink wrote: »

Nothing in and of itself. Just because commercial interests can be devious does not necessarily mean they are. I don't think intel and ryanair have anything to gain commercially from Lisbon beyond the strengthening of the EU single market.

"Nothing in and of itself".

Are you really sure?

I'm old enough to remember two very contentious referenda on abortion & divorce & I don't remember any corporate campaigning, whatsoever.
So, face the question posed, & answer honestly.
What is it specifically about the Lisbon Treaty that makes the corporate monoliths interfere?

Cool Mo D

I think that the most important principle that corporations should obey is they should be allowed lobby people, but it is dodgy, verging on corrupt to lobby TDs directly.
If a company comes out openly and spends money to try and persuade the people of Ireland of what they want, I do not see a problem with that (as long as they are not purposefully misleading anyone). But US style lobbying of TDs being wined and dined behind closed doors is seriously inappropriate.

sink

isocket wrote: »

What is it specifically about the Lisbon Treaty that makes the corporate monoliths interfere?

I already gave my answer "the strengthening of the EU single market" of which they are upfront and honest about. It's a far cry from the sort of dangers that I'm worried about, where corporate lobby groups purposefully lie and misrepresent the truth as is happening in the case of healthcare reform in the US.

Sam Vimes

isocket wrote: »

"Nothing in and of itself".

Are you really sure?

I'm old enough to remember two very contentious referenda on abortion & divorce & I don't remember any corporate campaigning, whatsoever.
So, face the question posed, & answer honestly.
What is it specifically about the Lisbon Treaty that makes the corporate monoliths interfere?

Do you honestly not see any difference between divorce, abortion and an international treaty in terms of the interests of business?

Scofflaw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you honestly not see any difference between divorce, abortion and an international treaty in terms of the interests of business?

I was actually going to say that it was hardly surprising that no companies had ever been involved in the abortion and divorce referendums, but decided not to bother, since it obviously didn't really need to be said. I see I was wrong.

wearily,
Scofflaw

markfla

gonna vote yes myself but would be cynical of Intel's motives with a 1 billion euro EUROPEAN anti trust case and all.....are they looking for a bit of slack from Europe?

isocket

Cool Mo D wrote: »

But US style lobbying of TDs being wined and dined behind closed doors is seriously inappropriate.

Quite, & the safest way to protect our democracy is to ban all & any corporate campaigning.
Wining & dining is the cream of the EU/Corporate/Big Business gravy train & the Lisbon Treaty will guarantee, for the first time, the merchants-of-death in the Big Club.

Scofflaw

markfla wrote: »

gonna vote yes myself but would be cynical of Intel's motives with a 1 billion euro EUROPEAN anti trust case and all.....are they looking for a bit of slack from Europe?

If they are, they're not being given it - see the thread on "Commission publishes decision concerning Intel's abuse of dominant position".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

isocket wrote: »

Quite, & the safest way to protect our democracy is to ban all & any corporate campaigning.
Wining & dining is the cream of the EU/Corporate/Big Business gravy train & the Lisbon Treaty will guarantee, for the first time, the merchants-of-death in the Big Club.

It would be better to cut out all campaigning, since almost without exception it's contributed nothing to the debate.

regards,
Scofflaw

imeddyhobbs

I'm still not 100 percent either way but the amount of big business men promoting a yes vote makes me very unsure, especially Intel.

Intel have been given the biggest fine in EU history under anti competitive rules to the tune of 1.5 billion euros but yet intel is seeking a yes vote in this treaty...why would they do that?intel is totally against unions,it hates them.Should we trust a company that has received the biggest fine in the history of the EU?intel has put half a million euros into the yes side but yet it has let go over 200 people in its plant in leixlip in recent times,in all fairness this smells like a sell-out on intel's behalf,kiss europes ass and get a European court ruling halved at least.

I will never ever believe what a private company puts forward because as they always say....It's about the shareholders...Im not a shareholder in any company nor are any members of my family or friends

I smell a rat in this treaty due to the amount of major company's promoting a yes vote without justifiably telling me why i should vote yes and dont dare tell me it will create jobs..i'm not in the mood for laughing right now.

Scofflaw

Would people please check there isn't an existing thread before posting? Thanks.

moderately,
Scofflaw

imeddyhobbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would people please check there isn't an existing thread before posting? Thanks.

moderately,
Scofflaw

search is down due to maintenance

Victor

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

Intel have been given the biggest fine in EU history under anti competitive rules to the tune of 1.5 billion euros but yet intel is seeking a yes vote in this treaty...why would they do that?

Intel has invested in Ireland since 1989 because Ireland is English speaking, has the necessary skills, has a favourable tax régime and is inside the EU. Intel and other American businesses feared that the formation of the EU would make Europe more isolationist, which would lead to import duties on their products. I imagine they fear a "No" vote would lead to political pressure on Ireland that would lead to policies unfavourable to Intel.

kiss europes ass and get a European court ruling halved at least.

Thats a bit far fetched. If Intel want the fine cut by €750m its madness if you think the EU would do that for €0.5m. Surely the EU could just tell Intel to sod off and invest €750m in job creation in Ireland, thereby clinching a "Yes" vote?

imeddyhobbs

Victor wrote: »

Intel has invested in Ireland since 1989 because Ireland is English speaking, has the necessary skills, has a favourable tax régime and is inside the EU. Intel and other American businesses feared that the formation of the EU would make Europe more isolationist, which would lead to import duties on their products. I imagine they fear a "No" vote would lead to political pressure on Ireland that would lead to policies unfavourable to Intel.

Thats a bit far fetched. If Intel want the fine cut by €750m its madness if you think the EU would do that for €0.5m. Surely the EU could just tell Intel to sod off and invest €750m in job creation in Ireland, thereby clinching a "Yes" vote?

intel are here to make money and they are doing that.how much will a no vote cost the EU?A hell of ot more than 750 millions i would suggest

Scofflaw

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

search is down due to maintenance

You don't need search to read the first two pages of the forum you're about to post on.

moderately,
Scofflaw

imeddyhobbs

I searched thru a few pages,i didnt see anything about intel,the search function was disabled,i'm sorry

gar32

I have a few points.

Intel and Ryanair are businesses with the main and most important drive. Too make money. That said they must both feel that Lisbon will help them do this. When did an economy become more important then peoples welfare. (Yes I know its needed to provide but 1st things 1st) Lisbon will be great for business (Big business) but for the small people like you and me we will be like the poor in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

I for one like the way Europe in the past has looked after the people better then in the USA. I don’t want a US of Europe .

Please Vote NO!!!!

Dinner

gar32 wrote: »

Intel and Ryanair are businesses with the main and most important drive. Too make money. That said they must both feel that Lisbon will help them do this. When did an economy become more important then peoples welfare. (Yes I know its needed to provide but 1st things 1st) Lisbon will be great for business (Big business) but for the small people like you and me we will be like the poor in the USA.

Which particular parts of the treaty will make 'the small people like you and me' poor?

Scofflaw

gar32 wrote: »

I have a few points.

Intel and Ryanair are businesses with the main and most important drive. Too make money. That said they must both feel that Lisbon will help them do this. When did an economy become more important then peoples welfare. (Yes I know its needed to provide but 1st things 1st) Lisbon will be great for business (Big business) but for the small people like you and me we will be like the poor in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

I for one like the way Europe in the past has looked after the people better then in the USA. I don’t want a US of Europe .

Please Vote NO!!!!

The EU continues to balance the need for business freedom to allow job creation with the protection of worker's rights - Lisbon doesn't take it suddenly over to one side of that balance. Is it just the fact that businesses are supporting it that makes you think it's suddenly changing? In the latter case, have you factored in that the majority of the unions are also supporting it? Alternatively, what do you feel - in the Treaty - tips that balance over?

cordially,
Scofflaw

gar32

Lisbon is the start of the end. It will take power to the centre of Europe and if you look at history big Empires have the starts, highs and ends. Everything about this scream’s to me NO NO NO.. 1st Lisbon is not in easy understandable form. Why are the reasons not spelled out to us?? Vote yes for Europe. Vote yes for Jobs. I got my voting car and it explains you have to go to the post office to get a copy of the amendments. Why is this not posted to everyone ? 7 A3 pages could be posted to us months in advance so we can talk about it at length. I have being thinking a lot. Reading watch videos etc etc. We voted NO they say are you sure? Lisbon is fussy and unclear at its best which means who ever has power will us it what ever way they want.

Clear understandable democracy is what I want not Lisbon. We have the technology to let people vote everyday on things that are important. The few people are making choices the many.

Lisbon No there has to be a better way!!!!

Dinner

gar32 wrote: »

Lisbon is the start of the end. It will take power to the centre of Europe and if you look at history big Empires have the starts, highs and ends. Everything about this scream’s to me NO NO NO.. 1st Lisbon is not in easy understandable form. Why are the reasons not spelled out to us?? Vote yes for Europe. Vote yes for Jobs. I got my voting car and it explains you have to go to the post office to get a copy of the amendments. Why is this not posted to everyone ? 7 A3 pages could be posted to us months in advance so we can talk about it at length. I have being thinking a lot. Reading watch videos etc etc. We voted NO they say are you sure? Lisbon is fussy and unclear at its best which means who ever has power will us it what ever way they want.

Clear understandable democracy is what I want not Lisbon. We have the technology to let people vote everyday on things that are important. The few people are making choices the many.

Lisbon No there has to be a better way!!!!

So... you don't have any specific articles that will make the 'small people like you and me' poor?

gar32

Do you have one that will make us rich?

gar32

These things are not wrote to be understood by the likes of you and me. The people writing them have years of legal studies and european law. The fact it is not understandable and simple make normal people uninterested. Thats why even people in power did not read it. Do you remember ? What will they deliver to us if it is a yes

Dinner

gar32 wrote: »

Do you have one that will make us rich?

I didn't claim it would make us rich. You claimed that it will make us poor.

Do you have those articles yet?

Dinner

gar32 wrote: »

This things are not wrote to be understood by the like of you and me. They people writing them have years of legal studies and european law. The fact it is not understandable and simple make normal people uninterested. Thats why even people in power did not read it. Do you remember ?

The people in power (I assume you are alluding to Cowen) helped write it.

And the treaty is compex because it is a complex international treaty drafted between 27 countries. It is an amendment treaty, not a constitutional document it is complicated because reform treaties are complicated.

gar32

So Summarize the main points of this treathy that will make life so much better please

Dinner

gar32 wrote: »

So Summarize the main points of this treathy that will make life so much better please

Here ye go

http://lisbonexposed.org/article_by_article_v2.pdf

Do I take this to mean that you don't have anything to back up your claim that Lisbon will make us all poor?

That wasn't written by me by the way. It was written by Scofflaw.

gar32

63 pages of legal clap trap is your summary? Thats like me telling you to read this

http://www.voteno.ie/resources/a_rebel%27s_guide_to_the_lisbon_treaty.pdf

Sam Vimes

gar32 wrote: »

63 pages of legal clap trap is your summary? Thats like me telling you to read this

http://www.voteno.ie/resources/a_rebel%27s_guide_to_the_lisbon_treaty.pdf

How do you suggest you summarise a 277 page legal dcument covering hundreds of areas for 27 nations?

Dinner

gar32 wrote: »

63 pages of legal clap trap is your summary? Thats like me telling you to read this

http://www.voteno.ie/resources/a_rebel%27s_guide_to_the_lisbon_treaty.pdf

It's a complex international treaty! Not everything can be broken down to a tasty slogan to be stuck on a lamp post.

To make things even easier you can go to lisbonexposed.org and search the treaty for any issues that you feel are important

Alternatively This is an entertaining read. Not exactly impartial though.

Scofflaw

gar32 wrote: »

63 pages of legal clap trap is your summary? Thats like me telling you to read this

http://www.voteno.ie/resources/a_rebel%27s_guide_to_the_lisbon_treaty.pdf

The original consolidated Treaty is about 500 pages, that summary is 50 (plus some explanations) - are you looking for the summary of the summary (5 pages) or the summary of the summary of the summary (1/2 page)?

And why do I suspect that if you were provided with such a very summary summary you'd dismiss it as "simplistic"?

amused,
Scofflaw

positivethinkin

I am voting No after reading this tread and many more like it

OldJay

gar32 wrote: »

63 pages of legal clap trap is your summary?

Thats the worrying thing about some of people who actually get off their buns and vote: refusing to actually read up on the issues.
How Irish . . .

gar32

So you have read the treathy in full please enlighten us JustinD.