Thursday, August 20, 2009

Intel to spend a hundreds of thousands campaigning for a yes vote in Ireland

Which has to be an extraordinarily expensive form of Stockholm syndrome. After all it was only a few short months ago that the EU hit them with a fine of 1.06 billion euros.
"I believe (in) business standing up and ... saying that it matters for business for growth ... playing a full role at the heart of Europe," General Manager Jim O'Hara told a news conference.
They are not the first group to join the growing 'Yes' bandwagon. Previous cheerleaders include the Irish Business and Employers Confederation and the American Chamber of Commerce. Its a fair fight of course given that the State TV station has decided that equal coverage of the two sides would be undemocratic. Since that balanced decision Noel Dorr former Irish Foreign Minister has outlined how to make things even less.
Mr Dorr said it should move away from what he described as the standard format involving a single presenter dealing with a heated and confusing tit-for-tat argument between the Yes and No sides. “Instead, it should organise three structured debates in which a panel of three would forensically question a platform of three from each side of the debate before a small studio audience.” He said experience in previous referendums had shown that the tit-for-tat format generated heat rather than light “and this leaves the viewer confused”.
Or read, "the Bastards won the last vote. We can stack the panel".


13th Spitfire said...

You cannot carry culture by the sword. Whan all this is over, in god knows how many years, the Irish will remember.

Budgie said...

I usually buy AMD.

Jon Worth said...

Oh come on. Business lobbies for whatever its interests are. OK, they were fined by the European Commission, but they would be in even more of a mess if Ireland moved more towards the edge of Europe (or towards the exit as Sarko would want it) if they vote no. It's rational business behaviour.


This can not be construed as purely a "business lobby",as usual there are limitless funds for the "yes"party,but none for the "no"party,i know ,i tried when we thought that we in England were going to be "allowed" a referendum,one party state anyone?

Budgie said...

Jon Worth said: "... but they [Intel] would be in even more of a mess if Ireland moved more towards the edge of Europe"

Well, geographically Ireland is on the "edge of Europe", and, err, always will be.

But you are not trying to imply that our friends on the continent would refuse to trade fairly with us, or Ireland, if we left the EU, are you? Some friends you have.

Nor is France on the "edge of Europe" because she voted against Lisbon (aka the EU Constitution).

Get a grip Mr Worth.

Jon Worth said...

@Budgie - you seem to assume that I agree with what is going to happen if Ireland were to vote no... Not so.

When I say Ireland would be shunted to the edge of Europe I mean economically and politically (it's clearly already there geographically) and I say this because people in high places in the EU - notably Sarko - have said as much. I think it's the wrong strategy and an idiotic thing to say. But that doesn't mean there are not people in Brussels thinking that way.

Budgie said...

And my point Jon Worth was that "friends" who are only friendly if you do as they instruct are not, actually, your friends.

Moreover, the view industriously circulated by europhiles that exit from the EU means that we would be "isolated" or as you put it "shunted to the edge of Europe ... economically and politically" is emotive claptrap to sway the timid.

France and Germany do not trade with us (or Ireland) for our good, but for theirs. That will continue to be the case after the UK leaves. Then mutual trade will be governed by WTO rules anyway.