Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Intel & Ryanair Yes Campaigns - An Open Question.

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    bubonicus wrote: »
    http://www.epa.ie/licences/lic_eDMS/090151b280086aed.pdf

    bottom of scan

    and listed here

    and I am voting YES. just for the record. And I have no idea about Declan Ganley.

    Erm

    thats Intel USA registration details there


    they are not the only US company to do that



    see the CRO search to find INTEL IRELAND LIMITED and several of their offshoots


    /


  • Options
    #63
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    oh lookit here what we have Mr Himself moved his interests offshore from Ireland


    FILINGS IN the Companies Registration Office (CRO) in Dublin show that Declan Ganley’s interest in his Tuam company, Rivada Networks, was transferred to a West Indies company in December 2005, a short time before the Tuam company became a subsidiary of a US company based in Colorado.
    This form stated the shares had been allotted to the Caribbean company.

    http://ganleydeclan.blogspot.com/2009/04/colm-keena-in-irish-time-shoots-ganleys.html


    the CRO documents are available to anyone from CRO website willing to spend a fiver to get more details ;)


    edit: theres more tax dodging by Declan
    The new 2007 accounts state that the Rivada group was restructured during that year. On March 1st, Rivada Networks LLC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rivada Networks International LLC, of Delaware, as did Rivada Networks of Tuam

    To anyone who is not aware, Delaware is corporate heaven in US itself > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_General_Corporation_Law

    edit 2: one of a kind :)

    The Prague High Court has confirmed a two-year suspended sentence with four years probation for sitting MEP Vladimir Zelezny, who is second on Libertas’s list of candidates.

    edit 3: knee deep in ****


    Declan Ganley refuses to come clean on his use of off shore companies



    /


  • Options
    #64
    bubonicus
    Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭bubonicus


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Erm

    thats Intel USA registration details there


    they are not the only US company to do that



    see the CRO search to find INTEL IRELAND LIMITED and several of their offshoots


    /

    So it's o.k. for a branch of a corporation to promote a YES vote, when the parent company are tax dodgers in their own country. And just because alot of companies do it, I still don't think it's right.

    It's not a big issue with me, It's just something I've noticed.


  • Options
    #65
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    bubonicus wrote: »
    So it's o.k. for a branch of a corporation to promote a YES vote, when the parent company are tax dodgers in their own country. And just because alot of companies do it, I still don't think it's right.

    It's not a big issue with me, It's just something I've noticed.

    no tax evasion is not right, but Intel Ireland are legaly a separate company and they have done alot of good for this country

    dont worry about Intel US etc Barrack Obama is breathing down their necks now


    whats more interesting is the amount of tax dodging Ganley is involved by moving his interests from Ireland offshore

    and they still dont know where the money for his campaign came from, while Intel and Ryanair are being transparent



    edit: btw Intel / Google / Microsoft and more

    by locating and opening shop in Ireland are according to some people evading taxation

    think about that as these are major employers in this country


    /


  • Options
    #66
    LookingFor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    It's no different than a businessman like Declan Ganley getting involved.

    There's a range of people and entities (companies) in the country with an interest in a yes or no vote. They should all be allowed to express their views. If a company really does think a vote one way or the other could be harmful to their prospects here then I actually welcome them coming out and saying it openly so that we're not just relying on what politicians say. Better that than them turning around after the vote and telling us either a) how great it was or b) how much **** we're in now.

    I sure as heck am more interested in what Intel has to say about it than I am the likes of Mary Lou McDonald :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    gar32
    Registered Users Posts: 1,024 ✭✭✭gar32


    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148&hl=en#


  • Options
    #68
    Bob_Harris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,619 ✭✭✭Bob_Harris


    Intel engaged in extremely anti competitive activities in the CPU market and got fined heavily by the EU. By calling for a Yes vote they hope to curry favour with the EU to avoid future sanctions.


  • Options
    #69
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bob_Harris wrote: »
    Intel engaged in extremely anti competitive activities in the CPU market and got fined heavily by the EU. By calling for a Yes vote they hope to curry favour with the EU to avoid future sanctions.
    You do realise that simply repeating this won't magically make it true, right?


  • Options
    #70
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    As companies are legally distinct entities, it follows that the rights conferred upon them in relation to engaging in political lobbying should be similar to that of the individual.

    If you would like to see this changed, deal with Salomon v Salomon.


  • Options
    #71
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You do realise that simply repeating this won't magically make it true, right?

    Do we know if they have paid the fine yet or not? If so can you provide a link.

    If they haven't paid the fine it is reasonable to assume that by providing support to Lisbon that they hope to reduce their fine - simple.

    If someone can prove that the fine has been paid and the case is closed (not just publication of the decision) then I'll accept it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    free-man wrote: »
    ...it is reasonable to assume that by providing support to Lisbon that they hope to reduce their fine...
    You go ahead and assume that, and I'll go ahead and assume that they believe that a "yes" vote would make for a better, and ultimately more profitable, environment for doing business in Ireland.


  • Options
    #73
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


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

    Do you have those articles yet?

    You didn't claim it but FF and the main stream media are towing the line that lisbon will create more jobs and a better economy which is a falsehood.


  • Options
    #74
    subfreq
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭subfreq


    I am a yes voter but made my mind up by trying to understand the treaty. I personally don't think they offered anything helpful to the debate.

    In fact in the case of O'Leary I get the feeling his awful add might have the opposite effect and polarize more No votes.

    Multinational Companies that run pan-European operations have one motivation. Profit making for their share holders. If you think otherwise then I think you are being naieve.

    Sure, with the right incentives Intel upped sticks and left Ireland with no delay, with a EU stamp of approval. I can see direct benefits for both Intel and Ryanair by campaigning very publicly for a yes in terms of currying favour in the corridors of the European Parliament.

    I have no problem with it but it certainly didn't have any impact on my decision.


  • Options
    #75
    mathie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,093 ✭✭✭mathie


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Like what?

    Lower minimum wage FTW!


  • Options
    #76
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You go ahead and assume that, and I'll go ahead and assume that they believe that a "yes" vote would make for a better, and ultimately more profitable, environment for doing business in Ireland.

    Your free to assume that too.

    Also I presume when you say "they" you don't mean to say all of Intel's employees feel this way. It could very well be a couple of Irish directors only.

    I'll take it from your avoidance that the fine has not been paid and is still negotiable under an appeal. We'll find out soon enough if the fine is reduced or not.


  • Options
    #77
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    free-man wrote: »
    Your free to assume that too.
    Thank you.
    Also I presume when you say "they" you don't mean to say all of Intel's employees feel this way. It could very well be a couple of Irish directors only.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that when the CEO of a large corporation publicly takes up a stance on a political topic, he's speaking on behalf of the corporation.
    I'll take it from your avoidance that the fine has not been paid and is still negotiable under an appeal.
    I honestly don't know whether it's been paid, or whether it's negotiable.
    We'll find out soon enough if the fine is reduced or not.
    Great. Then all you have to do is demonstrate that, if it is reduced, it was a result of their support for the Lisbon treaty.

    Or you could just assume it. Useful things, assumptions.


  • Options
    #78
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that when the CEO of a large corporation publicly takes up a stance on a political topic, he's speaking on behalf of the corporation.

    He may be speaking on behalf of the corporation which is most likely a group of directors. I doubt they took a vote of their staff to see if they back the Intel yes campaign.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I honestly don't know whether it's been paid, or whether it's negotiable. Great. Then all you have to do is demonstrate that, if it is reduced, it was a result of their support for the Lisbon treaty.
    So you can't state with certainty that their support is nothing to do with having the fine reduced - just wanted to clarify that.

    I can't state the opposite, but if the fine is reduced its not unreasonable to assume that it was to do with goodwill built up by lending support to the Lisbon Yes campaign.


  • Options
    #79
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    free-man wrote: »
    He may be speaking on behalf of the corporation which is most likely a group of directors. I doubt they took a vote of their staff to see if they back the Intel yes campaign.
    I'm sorry, I missed the announcement that Intel had stopped being a corporation and started being a democracy.

    A corporation isn't a "group of directors", it's a legal entity in its own right.
    So you can't state with certainty that their support is nothing to do with having the fine reduced - just wanted to clarify that.
    I can't state with certainty that their support is nothing to do with the alignment of the planets, either.
    I can't state the opposite, but if the fine is reduced its not unreasonable to assume that it was to do with goodwill built up by lending support to the Lisbon Yes campaign.
    Once again, you can assume anything you want, but unless you produce some evidence linking the two, your assumption remains precisely as valid as any other assumption by anyone else.


  • Options
    #80
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I missed the announcement that Intel had stopped being a corporation and started being a democracy.

    Where did I ever suggest that?

    What I said was its wrong to assume that because Intel are backing a Yes to Lisbon financially that it doesn't mean that every one of their employees feels the same way.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    A corporation isn't a "group of directors", it's a legal entity in its own right.

    Em.. where did I say it wasn't a legal entity! Who controls these legal entities? Usually?

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I can't state with certainty that their support is nothing to do with the alignment of the planets, either.

    Pretty funny! But seriously I think the public will make up their own mind and read between the lines if it does happen.


  • Options
    #81
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    free-man wrote: »
    What I said was its wrong to assume that because Intel are backing a Yes to Lisbon financially that it doesn't mean that every one of their employees feels the same way.
    Who assumed anything of the kind?

    Are you suggesting that Intel should only support something if they've canvassed their employees' opinions?
    Em.. where did I say it wasn't a legal entity! Who controls these legal entities? Usually?
    Their shareholders, ultimately. What's your point?
    Pretty funny! But seriously I think the public will make up their own mind and read between the lines if it does happen.
    Yes, people have a habit of reading between the lines alright - even when what's between the lines is actually white space.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Who assumed anything of the kind?

    Just addressing the sloganeering that most of big business are behind Lisbon. You can't extrapolate that because a corporation or body (IBEC) are for Lisbon that all it's members / employees are, it's actually a much smaller number of people - makes great headlines though.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that Intel should only support something if they've canvassed their employees' opinions?
    Not sure where you got that from. I'm pointing out they didn't poll their staff. Not that they should have. See my point above.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Their shareholders, ultimately. What's your point?

    Well its actually their directors who look after the day to day running of the business.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, people have a habit of reading between the lines alright - even when what's between the lines is actually white space.

    I agree, this happens on both sides, mostly the no side but in this case I think there's an exception.


  • Options
    #83
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    free-man wrote: »
    Just addressing the sloganeering that most of big business are behind Lisbon. You can't extrapolate that because a corporation or body (IBEC) are for Lisbon that all it's members / employees are, it's actually a much smaller number of people - makes great headlines though.
    I'm not sure where you're going with this straw man.

    Who, apart from you, mentioned anything about Intel's employees?

    Intel Ireland have publicly backed the Lisbon treaty. That's the corporation, with its own distinct legal personality. Not its employees, or its neighbours, or the people who take the train past it every day, or anyone else - just Intel.

    How did this stop being a discussion of Intel's putative motives, and start being an irrelevant discussion of whether Intel's employees agree with their employer's political views?


  • Options
    #84
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Intel Ireland have publicly backed the Lisbon treaty. That's the corporation, with its own distinct legal personality. Not its employees, or its neighbours, or the people who take the train past it every day, or anyone else - just Intel.

    Glad to have clarified. Now back to the topic at hand.

    In the absence of proof that the fine has been paid I think Intel are wrong to be campaigning for a Yes to Lisbon in return for favourable treatment from the ECJ.


  • Options
    #85
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    free-man wrote: »
    In the absence of proof that the fine has been paid I think Intel are wrong to be campaigning for a Yes to Lisbon in return for favourable treatment from the ECJ.

    In the absence of proof that Intel are campaigning for a Yes vote in return for favourable treatment from the ECJ I think it's right for Intel to support a vote that they believe will improve confidence.

    I like Occams Razor.


  • Options
    #86
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Dinner wrote: »
    In the absence of proof that Intel are campaigning for a Yes vote in return for favourable treatment from the ECJ I think it's right for Intel to support a vote that they believe will improve confidence.

    I like Occams Razor.

    Improve who's confidence? Yours?

    What will this improved confidence do... exactly?


  • Options
    #87
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    free-man wrote: »
    Improve who's confidence? Yours?

    What will this improved confidence do... exactly?

    Improved business confidence - which means that businesses will be more confident about the future of Ireland, and hence more ready to invest in Ireland, and/or to buy Irish products.

    Not, of course, that we need any such fiddle-faddle, because we're so successful, right?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #88
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Improved business confidence - which means that businesses will be more confident about the future of Ireland, and hence more ready to invest in Ireland, and/or to buy Irish products.

    Not, of course, that we need any such fiddle-faddle, because we're so successful, right?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Can you point out where in the treaty it says improved business confidence? I've looked but i just cant find it.

    Now that we've got that rubbish out of the way I personally don't think voting lisbon through will make a blind bit of difference to the economy. This is a fallacy to suggest that Lisbon which was based on the constitution has any provisions to help Ireland in a post Lehmans collapse world.

    Lisbon was written way before all this happened so what makes anyone think it will be useful in any shape or form?

    I don't think any international investors will not invest in Ireland if we vote No.

    If we vote No we stay with Nice, investors were perfectly able to invest under Nice so why would this change.

    I've met plenty of these hard nosed investors over the years and they're smart cookies. When they do due diligence on investment they look at things like educated workforce, broadband supply, tax rates and whether the numbers work.

    Its highly improbable that they'll confuse a No to Lisbon with Ireland been kicked out of Europe or in any way less important a member.

    I'm sorry, it just doesn't wash.


  • Options
    #89
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    free-man wrote: »
    Can you point out where in the treaty it says improved business confidence? I've looked but i just cant find it.
    It's right beside the bit that says Intel's fine will be reduced if they support the treaty.


  • Options
    #90
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's right beside the bit that says Intel's fine will be reduced if they support the treaty.


    Touché!

    In fairness you knew that line was meant in jest. Try reading the rest of the post and commenting on that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    free-man wrote: »
    Try reading the rest of the post and commenting on that.
    I think you're as entitled to your opinions as you are to your assumptions, but that if the Irish-American Chamber of Commerce is urging a "yes" vote to promote confidence in Ireland as a place to invest, I'm more likely to listen to them than to you - with all due respect.


Advertisement