Head over to our T
Intel to Spend ‘Several Hundred Thousand’ on a Yes To Lisbon Vote
Read more about: Irish Politics, Lisbon Treaty 
This is very interesting, last time out we had Libertas as the great private sector campaign with money at its disposal – now it looks like the Yes side will be the ones rolling in private dosh as Intel Chief Exec in Ireland Jim O’Hara signalled the intent of big business here to get behind the yes campaign. It certainly raises the stakes for the debate – with companies who politicans claim will be affected by a ‘no’ vote putting their money where their mouth is and trying to get people onside.
The ‘no’ side has a new group aswell which will likely cause more hassle for Padraig Walshe and the IFA than the wider population, Farmers for No will be chaired byJames Reynolds but there is no sign of Raymond O Malley (to the disappointment of all here in Irishelection.com HQ).
The Intel move will probably be slated as trying to buy a yes vote and in some senses that is exactly what it is but more importantly that was precisely part of the Libertas effort to get a no vote last time out. Whether it is correct that a democratic campaign is as dependent on money and spend as it is on rhetoric and debate is a point for a later stage in the campaign. The emergence of Intel and the multinationals as an overt political force will make it much more interesting as we now have a couple of groups that fall outside the usual political and politico-based formats.
The Intel move still undersores that the political class remain on holiday while both sides are mobilising to get the narrative out there. Will we see any major moves from our politicians in advance of the Dail’s resumption (and the debate on NAMA that might well turn the entire Lisbon debate on its head) or in the wake of their think-in? Quite possibly not and while it is widely suggested their departure from the field is no harm, perhaps their utter abandonment of the field to private groups is no help either? (Just thinking out loud)
Either way these groups will add colour, much needed perspective and perhaps help to forge a connection between the debate and the as-yet-disinterested electorate.
I wonder if we will see statements from the Dublin politicos telling Intel to stay out of the argument because they are not a “proper political party” or for Intel to give complete transparency on their finances…
Evert.
No sign of Ray O’Malley yet perhaps, but Reynolds is a close proxy, I saw both of them canvassing together in Naas during the Euro elections.
One of the few things that scares government ministers is Intel. The prospect that they might ever leave is the implicit threat that they have hanging over the government in discussions about everything — energy prices, transport links, and of course economic integration. Leave aside that in the end, decisions about where to locate probably come down to wage costs and in that regard Lisbon is only a side show. But now they’ve set up their stall. Note incidentally the apparently coordinated remarks between Intel and Micheal Martin (latter in Mayo).
I wonder has Jim O’Hara ever read the Treaty? I don’t hear him bringing up specific elements of the Treaty that will benefit the country. Rather, he says that voting no to an EU treaty ‘for the third time in 10 years’ would create ‘uncertainty’. What sort of argument is that? We can no longer be bamboozled into voting yes with the old “Europe is Good – Vote Yes” mantra. Otherwise, our remaining sovereignty will be wittled away bit by bit. This was not what 1916 was fought for, not to mention all the other sacrifices in our 800 year struggle for independence. Let not the sacrifice of the Patriot Dead be in vain.
I am also interested in SIPO’s perspective on this matter. It is essential that with Intel in receipt of grant-aid, taxpayers’ money is not involved in their campaign-spending. The McKenna judgement prohibits the use of taxpayers’ money to favour one side over another in a referendum campaign. I think that in the past, such an endorsement would have had a more potent affect, but that after 11 years of Tribunals, the Irish people have become extremely cynical about the involvement of Big Business in our political affairs.
FT, do you own a PC? If so did you read the entirety of the associated licensing agreements before purchase?
Looking at the case of Intel in Ireland and Ireland as country aiming to be a smart, knowledge-based economy, it would appear to me that Intel have a legitimate reason why they are putting forward an argument in favour of Lisbon. The choice of locations for microchip production facilities, I would believe is based, due to the hi-tech and sophisticated nature of the product, on many more considerations than just the wage costs. In fact, I would assume, again, due to the nature of the goods produced, the wage costs are very insignificant in the grand scheme of things. However, the actual production facilities cost huge sums of money. Of course, if you are considering investing such big money, you’d want to be certain about the destination where it is going.
This O’Hara guy was spot on today when he said that a No vote would jeopardise one of the main positive factors that was going for us here in Ireland because we were a committed team player in Europe.
I heard O’Hara speak on the radio in his North Dublin accent and he sounded to me like a guy who really cares.
Incidentally, apart from conspiracy theories, I can’t see why Intel will be coordinating their announcement with Micheal Martin. Mind you the Farmers also announced their No campaign on the same day. I wonder if Intel coordinate it with them too?
Well objectiveman, I can think of a few reasons why Intel might be supporting the yes campaign, and none of them relate to the interests of this country or the attractiveness of Ireland to FDI. Intel are presently embroiled in a legal battle with the EU Commission over uncompetitive practices (only awarding discounted prices to companies that committed to buying the overwhelming majority of their products from them). Maybe they are trying to get into Brussels’ good books and what better way to accomplish that than to promote the Lisbon Treaty.
In relation to funding, the SIPO website states that: “A third party may not accept:a donation, or donations from the same person, in the same year exceeding an aggregate value of €6,348.69.”. That is why Intel’s General Manager’s pledge to spend “several hundred thousand” euro should be of interest to the former. Has it been authorised by corporate HQ in US? If it has then by whom? And for what reasons? Has Intel ever taken one side on a constitutional issue in the US before? Or taken similar action in a US state? If so, what were these issues? Was this move discussed at and sanctioned by Intel’s board and CEO? This could backfire.
It was unfortunate that the original Official Vote on the New Constitution Lisbon Treaty attracted the political illiterate Declan Ganley, but at least he was Irish! The honest result of a NO vote rather went to his head and he went on to make a fool of himself (predictably) across The EU. Fair play to him, although he had absolutely no political nouse and was latched onto by every parasite around and many a political has been or failure for the EU elections he did aid the NO vote. Sadly he cost one of the genuine prime movers Kathy Sinnott MEP her seat in the EU election to no gain for Ireland. It was you will recall Kathy Sinnott who liberated Ind.Dem.Group money to fund a letter to every home in Ireland and more.
Congratulations to Kathy Sinnott who served Ireland well in the EU. At least the letter was mailed out!
When EUkip orchestrated EU money via The Ind.Dem.Group for a petition it looks all too like Nigel Farage & David Lott trousered the money as no petition ever took place but nor was the tax payers’ money returned!! Ireland has voted and they said NO there is probably an even greater reason for a NO vote now as even without the New Constitution Lisbon Treaty the EU has shown the democratic wishes of the Irish people are an irrelevancy in their inexorable salami slicing of the values of Ireland and the obscene march to a centralised ‘post democratic’ centralised, militaristic committee dictatorship based in Brussels. We note that The EU has pronounced the people of Ireland to be both liars and fools – as they totally dis count your democratic right to self determination, as clearly shown in the Foundation Charter of the UN – an Irish NO is clearly to be ignored. As a sop a series of petty ammendments have been made to the New Constitution for Ireland Lisbon Treaty to con the people who are clearly idiots if they swallow this con!
It is well worth reading the Treaty – you will note it makes it abundantly clear that EVERY vassal state of the ERU must sign it and there can be absolutely no ‘pick and mix’ in the long term – EVERY signatore MUST sign the same New Constitution Treaty! The variances for Ireland are merely a Derogation (that’s not a place in West Kerry but a TEMPORARY variance!). It looks like not only is Ireland being betrayed by its Political class, in the main, but do remember just how huge the bribes, salaries and expenses being handed out by The EU are relative to the average income of the Irish peoples – now we note a giant American Corporation seeks to buy a result to suit their corporate interests.
If you believe that a YES vote is in the interest of Ireland, its peoples or its moral and independent values you probably still believe in Leprachauns – THINK AGAIN – they think your ‘tick and didn’t understand the vote last time – They’ll KNOW your ‘tick if you vote YES this time.
Turn EVERY Election into a Referendum for Liberty, Sovereignty, Justice & Home Rule
Write on YOUR Ballot Paper in EVERY election:
LEAVE THE EU
We don’t want to leave the EU, Greg L.W. We have an interest in helping Europe complete the unfinished task of implementing a Single Market in goods and services, where consumer choice drives down prices. But we do not want Ireland reabsorbed into some kind of empire where our own elected representatives have less say in the laws of this country than unelected and even elected bureaucrats who do not represent this country and have never stood before an Irish electorate.
We are also standing up for all true democrats in Europe who want the decisions of the Irish, French and Dutch peoples respected, and for all European voters to get a say in blueprints like this. The peoples of Europe are tiring of “ever closer union”. They are attached to their own national identities and do not want the process of European integration to proceed much further. They want a Europe based on a Single Market in goods and services, without a race to the bottom in pay and conditions. That is what Europe should focus on – not turning the EU into a state de-jure or de-facto.
Hi,
I feel it would be ill mannered of me to address Future Taoiseach’s comments in detail on someone elses blog similarly it would be ill mannered not to respond and irresponsible not to provide facts to debunk the misinformation and wish list!
Therefore I have taken the liberty of responding on my own blog at:
http://irish-referendum.blogspot.com/2009/08/e011-dream-is-in-fact-escalating.html
I trust the incumbent blogger here will accept my nettiquette but may by all means copy any item from my blog which may help to inform.
http://irish-referendum.blogspot.com
it links to much else!
& is presented in my own name without need to hide behind some false nom de plume.
My full contact data is readily available at:
http://GregLanceWatkins.blogspot.com
Regards,
Greg L-W.
I came across an article in the website “Middle East Onliine” called “Reflecting on Iran’s Presidential Election”. Even though this article deals primarily with Iran it also deals with colour revolutions. As I read it it looked vaguely familiar. It was only when I read the following that I realised the that the Lisbon treaty is a colour revolution with “Lisbon Treaty” substituted for “Orange”, “Green”, “Red” etc. This article is worth a read. Here is an extract:
“Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, large scale privatization of public enterprises became rampant in Russia and other former republics of the Soviet Union. All kinds of “experts” of nation-building on a capitalist basis, especially neoliberal economic advisors from the United States, played key roles in crafting those highly scandalous privatization schemes. By virtue of privatizing public property on the cheap, many of the leaders of the newly independent states managed to become very rich very quickly—they have since come to be known as oligarchs. (Michael Hudson, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, calls them “kleptocrats,” denoting corrupt ruling elites that seek power and personal gain at the expense of the public.)
But the newly acquired private fortunes needed freedom from the remnants of the Soviet-era legal and institutional “constraints” such as labor laws (that guaranteed life-time employment), universal healthcare, cradle-to-grave free education, and the like. To break free from these “restraining” laws and traditions, the oligarchs also needed political or state power that would go along with their economic power, i.e., would allow them to conduct their economic affairs according to unhindered market mechanism.
The oligarch’s desire to bring about legal, political and institutional changes to better serve their nefarious economic interests coincided with the globalization designs of US imperialism to bring about “regime change” in those countries in order to carry out pro-American economic and foreign policies. This explains the convergence of the interests of the imperialist and the home-grown bourgeoisies on removing “undesirable regimes” from power.”