Niall Fitzgerald Irish chairman of Unilever slams irish business/politics nexus

jonsnow

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0306/1224265713249.html?via=mr

FINTAN O'TOOLE

ONE OF Ireland’s most successful businessmen, Niall Fitzgerald, has told The Irish Times he did not feel that he could have pursued a business career in Ireland without compromising his personal principles.

Mr Fitzgerald left Ireland in 1970 and went on to become chairman and chief executive of the giant conglomerate Unilever and chairman of the global media agency Reuters.

In an interview published today, Mr Fitzgerald suggests that “many people in domestic Irish business succeeded because they were intertwined with politics” and that “unless I was prepared to engage more directly with politicians . . . and at some point be ready to compromise on my own principles, that that would restrict my abilities to develop a business career in Ireland”.

Mr Fitzgerald is critical of what he calls the “claustrophobia” of Irish business. He says “that very intimacy, the knowledge that you can take one small envelope and write all the names that matter on the back of it” militated against independent jjudgment and high ethical standards, contributing to the current crisis in the Irish economy.

Recalling a dinner last summer with friends who had served on the boards of Irish banks, Mr Fitzgerald (himself a director of Bank of Ireland during the 1990s) says he posed a question: Were they aware of the risks that were being taken and thus “complicit with the recklessness”? Or were they unaware of what was going on and thus failing to discharge their responsibilities as directors? The question, he says, prompted a “very ferocious conversation”.

Mr Fitzgerald is also critical of the argument that banks must continue to pay very high salaries to retain senior managers. “You mean, these terribly valuable people who either didn’t understand the risks they were running or understood them and continued anyway without thought for the consequences? You know what? I could do without those valuable people.”

He also criticises high-level business people and bankers who are going into exile in tax havens such as Switzerland. He is, he says, “deeply sad” that some seem obsessed with “how you avoid at almost any cost to yourself and your family being a supportive member of the wider society in which you live”.

Mr Fitzgerald expresses concerns about the ability of those in positions of power to take responsibility for what has happened. “If the leaders of a society are not prepared to hold themselves accountable or there are not the institutions which are sufficiently independent to hold them accountable, then I think you have a very serious problem on your hands.”

This is pretty damning stuff and its coming from a titan of capitalism not some leftwing socialist.Essentially we have such a dysfunctional business culture that you have to compromise your principles and become politically connected if you want to get ahead.We dont have capitalism in ireland just its incompetent venal bastard stepchild crony capitalism.Its not hard to make a fortune I suppose when your political mates tell you were to invest and when and guarantee you,ll get the contract.This won,t effect irish business culture one jot unfortunately

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

yobr

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Some balls from him to come out with such a statement...

Scofflaw

Ireland is a factional oligarchy. Where's the surprise here?

amused,
Scofflaw

luigi8738

“If the leaders of a society are not prepared to hold themselves accountable or there are not the institutions which are sufficiently independent to hold them accountable, then I think you have a very serious problem on your hands.”... this really is an amazing statement and unfortunately is relevant in this country, where our "leaders" both political and financial seems to be completely oblivious to their responsibilities both ethically and morally. Not to mention the growing disillusionment and contempt the general public are stating to hold them in .... really I am in a state of despair for this great country of ours, how did we let this situation arise where the LUNATICS really are running the asylum .... more importantly how can we change it for the better, do we need to hit the streets to remind these grossly overpaid, arrogant and ignorant people to get the message .... we really have had enough!!!!!!!!!

ei.sdraob

ONE OF Ireland’s most successful businessmen, Niall Fitzgerald, has told The Irish Times he did not feel that he could have pursued a business career in Ireland without compromising his personal principles.

....

He also criticises high-level business people and bankers who are going into exile in tax havens such as Switzerland. He is, he says, “deeply sad” that some seem obsessed with “how you avoid at almost any cost to yourself and your family being a supportive member of the wider society in which you live”.

people are voting with their feet

news at 11

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What do you think of his view on the immorality of tax avoidance?

ei.sdraob

Exile 1798 wrote: »

What do you think of his view on the immorality of tax avoidance?

that raises an interesting question

is it "immoral" to avoid paying taxes to a corrupt and incompetent government who will just hand it over to failed banks or further line own pockets?

luigi8738

now that's an interesting moral dilema

Exile 1798

ei.sdraob wrote: »

that raises an interesting question

is it "immoral" to avoid paying taxes to a corrupt and incompetent government who will just hand it over to failed banks or further line own pockets?

It's an interesting question.

I share Mr Fitzgerald's view. Then again, I fall in the Social Democract spectrum. It might not be such as easy answer for an extreme Ayn Randist type.

jonsnow wrote: »

He also criticises high-level business people and bankers who are going into exile in tax havens such as Switzerland. He is, he says, “deeply sad” that some seem obsessed with “how you avoid at almost any cost to yourself and your family being a supportive member of the wider society in which you live”.

Mr Fitzgerald expresses concerns about the ability of those in positions of power to take responsibility for what has happened. “If the leaders of a society are not prepared to hold themselves accountable or there are not the institutions which are sufficiently independent to hold them accountable, then I think you have a very serious problem on your hands.”

ei.sdraob

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It's an interesting question.

I share Mr Fitzgerald's view. Then again, I fall in the Social Democract spectrum. It might not be such as easy answer for an extreme Ayn Randist type.

your calling me "extreme Ayn Randist type"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

ei.sdraob wrote: »

your calling me "extreme Ayn Randist type"

No not you. I seem to recall you making some concessions to common sense.

Sorry for the confusion.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely. There are thousands of religions and cults, I don't have to study their founding documents to know that they're nuts. It's evident from what their followers do and say.

Mr Fitzgerald sounds like a very reasonable man. I found myself agreeing to pretty much everthing he's quoted as saying. His opinion on tax aviovdance was a significant aspect of the article you thanked and commented on. So I'm wondering what your opinion on tax avoidence is?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No surprise there.

Do you believe that that the opportunity to pay little or no tax should be limited to "wealthy and successful people"?

Do you believe that "wealthy and successful people" who avoid tax should be entitled to benefit from state provision funded by the taxes that the rest of us pay?

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good enough.

Mr Fitzgerald sounds like a very reasonable and upright man. I found myself agreeing with everything he was quoted as saying. I also agreed with your comment on people reflexively blaming the free market. In my view it's not so much capitalism as corporatism that's to blame, Mr Fitzgerald seems to be fingering corporatism and cronyism for Ireland's particular situation.

It's interesting that Mr Fitzgerald, yourself and I seem to agree with each other on a lot. I hope one day you'll leave your dead end ultra-Rightist cult that requires you to applaud immoral practices such as tax avoidance by the wealthiest members of society.:(

Eliot Rosewater

Turn the question on its head. Why should the country of your birth be able to detain you, effectively, so you will pay tax? Why should individuals be forbidden from moving to different societies that suit their views better?

You will retort by saying that people have a responsibility towards those around them. Well why should your subjective opinion of responsibility be impressed upon unwilling neighbours?

ei.sdraob

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I hope one day you'll leave your dead end ultra-Rightist cult

I wouldn't think of @df as an "ultra-rightist" "cult" member

If you read his posts he seems to lean heavily onto the libertarian axis (away from authoritarianism)

That's a whole different dimension to the right vs left axis
so please stop being so 1 dimensional

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you believe that "wealthy and successful people" who avoid tax should be entitled to benefit from state provision funded by the taxes that the rest of us pay?

Statistically most wealthy people would pay more tax in absolute terms then an average PAYE worker even if they are taking advantage of every tax relief avavilable, so the question doesnt really hold up? ever seen the VRT on a Merc or the stamp duty on a €10m house.

Also taxation is not a charitable donation. No one is obliged to pay 1cent more in tax then the rules say. Are you sugesting that it is "immoral" for an average taxpayer to pay into a pension scheme for the tax advantages, or to buy a new house versus a second hand house to "avoid" stamp duty. How about shopping in NI to "avoid" Irish duties.

Exile 1798

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Turn the question on its head. Why should the country of your birth be able to detain you, effectively, so you will pay tax? Why should individuals be forbidden from moving to different societies that suit their views better?

You will retort by saying that people have a responsibility towards those around them. Well why should your subjective opinion of responsibility be impressed upon unwilling neighbours?

It's not the question you're turning on it's head, but reality.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's both moral and practical.

I think public education as an option for all, Universal Healthcare, a police force, fire brigade and public roads are all moral and practical.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely. These are the basics of the Social Democratic system.

In fact I don't just think it's moral I think it's fantastic that we're at the point in human history in the Western World where societies through functioning democratic Nation states provide these basic services to all it's citizens regardless of their means.

Do you think it's practical for us to have some of the highest paid teachers, nurses, ambulance drivers, police officers, and fire fighters in the OECD?

What's practical to pay public sector workers is up for debate certainly.

That publically employed teachers, nurses, ambulance drivers, police officers, and fire fighters should exist certainly in not a realistic debate.

As it is you've got nothing to add to that debate. You're clearly a very bright intellect donegafella but you're wasting your natural abilities by divorcing yourself from reality and opting out of the real debate.

Do you think it's moral to sustain a €20 billion+ public sector and a €20 billion+ welfare bill, even if it means passing the enormous deficits on to our children and grandchildren?

No.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep people were clamouring to get to the Social Democratic nations of Western Europe... those evil, immoral places with sliding taxation and such like.

silverharp

Exile 1798 wrote: »

In fact I don't just think it's moral I think it's fantastic that we're at the point in human history in the Western World where societies through functioning democratic Nation states provide these basic services to all it's citizens regardless of their means.

How about regardless of affordability. I cant think of many countires that have funded future liabilities of pension costs or the effects of known demographic changes. Also why are these countires passing on debt to future generations to sort out? Enjoy the party while it lasts!

nesf

Exile 1798 wrote: »

hat publically employed teachers, nurses, ambulance drivers, police officers, and fire fighters should exist certainly in not a realistic debate.

One can have universal healthcare while not having publicly employed nurses etc like the Dutch do. It's not a simple black and white choice, though the unions would like to paint it that way.

Valmont

nesf wrote: »

One can have universal healthcare while not having publicly employed nurses etc like the Dutch do. It's not a simple black and white choice, though the unions would like to paint it that way.

I think I read about this in the economist a few months back. Does it involve the government simply paying a private company to actually provide the services as they see fit?

Valmont

Exile 1798 wrote: »

divorcing yourself from reality

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It's not the question you're turning on it's head, but reality.

Could you explain this reality to anyone who may not be a social democrat? It is rather naive to cast off dissenting opinions as 'unrealistic' instead of engaging with them critically.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Why should the country of your birth be able to detain you, effectively, so you will pay tax? Why should individuals be forbidden from moving to different societies that suit their views better?

Perhaps you could explain why Eliot has turned reality on its head here? I think it is a perfectly valid question given your earlier comments.

Dr Galen

More or less yes.

There are service standards, and provision standards in place, but the essence of the system is as you describe. A private organisation is contracted to provide healthcare services

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

Valmont wrote: »

Could you explain this reality to anyone who may not be a social democrat? It is rather naive to cast off dissenting opinions as 'unrealistic' instead of engaging with them critically.

Not really. Engaging different views that fall outside of the bounds of reason can be a waste of time. Sometimes merely highlighting those views is enough to counter them.

Trokyite's say "property is theft!" I hardly have to critically engage that view. Most everyones shared experience tells them intuitively that it's nonsense.

The same case applies with the "taxation is theft!" argument.

Valmont wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain why Eliot has turned reality on its head here? I think it is a perfectly valid question given your earlier comments.

Reality: No one can be detained in a country to force them to pay tax.

Reality: Wealthy people and big companies who set their hearts on it can avoid tax through all sorts of schemes and loop holes.

Reality: Nothing can really be done to stop this. Time and again determined tax avoiders and their lawyers have proven that they can stay within a millimetre of the law. But there is a social sanction against it, with people in business and outside deeming it wrong and immoral.

I think it's instructive that a successful business man like Niall Fitzgerald should speak out against cronyism, huge salaries for executives who've proven themselves to be incompetent, and tax avoidance. His views are consistent with the outlook I've encountered from most successful people engaged in small and medium size business.

I think this tendency amongst (presumably) young Right Wingers like Eliot and ei.sdraob to turn reality on it's head and dismiss social morality is self defeating and sad. In the case of donegalfella when it takes the form not of a tendency but a cultist belief system it's both sad and somewhat amusing in it's absurdity.

Exile 1798

nesf wrote: »

One can have universal healthcare while not having publicly employed nurses etc like the Dutch do. It's not a simple black and white choice, though the unions would like to paint it that way.

Good point, I was generalising when I said publicly employed nurses. When the fact that Health Care is a basic right is accepted, the question then becomes how can we best provide Healthcare to all? The answer is generally practical and achievable.

Some countries do it with a public system like Britain with it's outstanding health service, some do it with a combination of public and private like Australia with their world class system, others like the Netherlands achieve it with mandated, heavily regulated private insurance. All are outstanding, world class healthcare systems which are extremely popular in their own countries.

If however you don't accept that Healthcare is a basic right, then you don't set out to achieve universal coverage, you end up with the tragic mess that is United States Healthcare situation – it wouldn't be right to call it a system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

imme

jonsnow wrote: »

Recalling a dinner last summer with friends who had served on the boards of Irish banks, Mr Fitzgerald (himself a director of Bank of Ireland during the 1990s) says he posed a question: Were they aware of the risks that were being taken and thus “complicit with the recklessness”? Or were they unaware of what was going on and thus failing to discharge their responsibilities as directors? The question, he says, prompted a “very ferocious conversation”.

Mr Fitzgerald is also critical of the argument that banks must continue to pay very high salaries to retain senior managers. “You mean, these terribly valuable people who either didn’t understand the risks they were running or understood them and continued anyway without thought for the consequences? You know what? I could do without those valuable people.”

He also criticises high-level business people and bankers who are going into exile in tax havens such as Switzerland. He is, he says, “deeply sad” that some seem obsessed with “how you avoid at almost any cost to yourself and your family being a supportive member of the wider society in which you live”.

Mr Fitzgerald expresses concerns about the ability of those in positions of power to take responsibility for what has happened. “If the leaders of a society are not prepared to hold themselves accountable or there are not the institutions which are sufficiently independent to hold them accountable, then I think you have a very serious problem on your hands.”

This is pretty damning stuff and its coming from a titan of capitalism not some leftwing socialist.Essentially we have such a dysfunctional business culture that you have to compromise your principles and become politically connected if you want to get ahead.We dont have capitalism in ireland just its incompetent venal bastard stepchild crony capitalism.Its not hard to make a fortune I suppose when your political mates tell you were to invest and when and guarantee you,ll get the contract.This won,t effect irish business culture one jot unfortunately

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here OP.
Is it buisness practices that Fitzgerald is implicating as having failed. Yet you bring in political leadership into the thread title.

Again with later posts on page 3 the thread seems to have gone way off topic with the usual Union-bashing etc.

walshb

"Mr Fitzgerald is also critical of the argument that banks must continue to pay very high salaries to retain senior managers. “You mean, these terribly valuable people who either didn’t understand the risks they were running or understood them and continued anyway without thought for the consequences? You know what? I could do without those valuable people.”

This quote above is the key. For far too long that lame and useless excuse that in order to attract the best, we must pay the best. Bollox to that. It's a ****ing con job. Pay the most and it seems we are getting absolute crap.

Spot on, Niall.

Eliot Rosewater

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I think this tendency amongst (presumably) young Right Wingers like Eliot and ei.sdraob....the case of donegalfella when it takes the form not of a tendency but a cultist belief system

I find this personalization of the debate particularly ironic coming from someone whos argument is based on a supposed adherance to the "bounds of reason".

ei.sdraob

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I find this personalization of the debate particularly ironic coming from someone whos argument is based on a supposed adherance to the "bounds of reason".

+1

i find it really amusing being labelled a "young right winger" considering i have voted in not too distant past of the likes of Labour

for the second time @Exile 1798 i will tell you to stop being so politically 1 dimensional

i dont care much for far right or far left arguments, especially if they involve large amounts of state control
my political compass is more sensitive to the authoritarian/libertarian axis


you really should stop labelling libertarian arguments as right wing
it only reflects badly on you, and shows your shallow understanding of politics and economics

jmayo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

that raises an interesting question

is it "immoral" to avoid paying taxes to a corrupt and incompetent government who will just hand it over to failed banks or further line own pockets?

But what about when the tax avoider who is heading to Switzerland has helped bankrupt those same banks and whose companies are leaving around 1 billion of toxic debts to the Irish taxpayers courtesy of NAMA ?

And since he was close to ff and the connected ones either in the Anglo cesspit or the playground for the connected i.e. the K Club, we can probably put on some bets a few pockets have been lined by him in his day.

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/K%20club%20graveyard.jpg

And in case anyone doesn't know who has recently moved to Switzerland, it is ex tax advisor property developer derek quinlan.

You know the guy that along with bernie macnamara, Anglo directors lar bradshaw and seanie fitz helped DDDA sink part of the 412million into a toxic site in Ringsend that is now worth about 50 million.
And before anyone says it, I know DDDA only took some of the 412million investment and thus loans, but guess what due to NAMA and nationalisation of Anglo we(the actual resident taxpayers) are repsonsible for all the loans on it :rolleyes:

donegalfella wrote: »

I disagree with him on that point. I fully support the right of wealthy and successful people to move to more congenial tax environments, rather than being held hostage to whatever the Irish state chooses to extort from them.

Would that include derek quinlan, a man who is dumping his sh**e on us the taxpayers ?

Here is some more interesting information on the aforementioned derek quinlan and how not alone is he not paying tax he is costing us tax.
The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) gave a €43 million soft loan to the Becbay consortium.

The other shareholders are developers Bernard McNamara and Derek Quinlan, who own 41 per cent and 33 per cent of Becbay, respectively.

The €43million has now been written off by the DDDA.

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/ddda-wrote-off-43m-soft-loan-46098.html

Donegalfella is this the calibre of "wealthy and successful people" whose rights you are so vehement in supporting ?

The extorting is not being done by us, it is being done by him not paying his debts and walking away. :mad:
Next time, before you start championing the rights of these people, please check out how much they are going to cost YOU and ME.

walshb wrote: »

"Mr Fitzgerald is also critical of the argument that banks must continue to pay very high salaries to retain senior managers. “You mean, these terribly valuable people who either didn’t understand the risks they were running or understood them and continued anyway without thought for the consequences? You know what? I could do without those valuable people.”

This quote above is the key. For far too long that lame and useless excuse that in order to attract the best, we must pay the best. Bollox to that. It's a ****ing con job. Pay the most and it seems we are getting absolute crap.

Spot on, Niall.

It owuld be ok if for the money being paid we got Gerry Robinson, Michael O'Leary, Niall Fitzpatrick, Denis Brosnan or the like.

Oh but no, instead we get the gimps like roddy molloy, eugene sheehy, seanie fitz, david drumm (now in New England somewhere, but Dublin house with loans in wifes name), michael sticky fingers fingelton, brian goggins, michael neary, liam o'reilly and john hurley.

Jeeze there are some prize gimps on that list.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes on the first paragraph, except to say that I don't consider Health, Education, Police and Fire to be expansive, but rather basic entitlements. Further the high earners have the right to the very same entitlements.

Deficit spending certainly has its place.

I do support cuts to public services and social welfare in Ireland today, I never said otherwise. It is simply to high now and was arguably too high even in the boom years.

However I don't want them scraped, nor am I personally revolted at the very thought of them as you seem to be.

On your last point, I put it you that the average person not versed in the background to many of your philosophical and dogma driven positions would find them to be irrational and absurd, so using those very terms to characterise them as such is quite appropriate. I'm talking about the tax avoidance by the wealthy is great, public health care is immoral, laws that stipulate new buildings have disabled access points are immoral views.

ei.sdraob

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I do support cuts to public services and social welfare in Ireland today, I never said otherwise. It is simply to high now and was arguably too high even in the boom years.

However I don't want them scraped, nor am I personally revolted at the very thought of them as you seem to be.

as i said before IMHO there is a place in society for:
* welfare (should really be called insurance and be administered as such),
* healthcare (doesnt have to be run by state to be universal),
* education (free up to 3rd level, then it gets interesting)

but as long as the books are balanced, as i have shown im my previous thread, expenditure has gone out of control and is a cruel joke now

the argument IMHO is not about the need for a state, the argument is about how large the state is allowed to become

imme

ei.sdraob wrote: »

+1
you really should stop labelling libertarian arguments as right wing
it only reflects badly on you, and shows your shallow understanding of politics and economics

is there really a need to personalise the argument?
Is it your place to be judging posters.

Exile 1798

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as i said before IMHO there is a place in society for:
* welfare (should really be called insurance and be administered as such),
* healthcare (doesnt have to be run by state to be universal),
* education (free up to 3rd level, then it gets interesting)

but as long as the books are balanced, as i have shown im my previous thread, expenditure has gone out of control and is a cruel joke now

the argument IMHO is not about the need for a state, the argument is about how large the state is allowed to become

Certainly that's a very constructive and important debate to have.

And the reason it is substantive is because it is reality based. Putting forth the idea that there's no such thing as society and arguing from that point of view certainly won't get anyone anywhere.

ei.sdraob

imme wrote: »

is there really a need to personalise the argument?
Is it your place to be judging posters.

im not the one who started down that road in this thread

but being an adult i will stop

imme

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im not the one who started down that road in this thread

but being an adult i will stop

there you go again:D

Exile 1798

I don't see anything personal with what ei.sd said.

I disagree with his view on my view and about what being a libertarian means on the left-right political spectrum. Though that's another topic perhaps we can will get into on another thread sometime.

For mine I think I should give this thread back over the focus on Mr Fitzgerald's comments on Ireland’s political and economic problems, with which I agree with entirely in both substance and spirit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please remember that, even though asserted as if it were fact, this is a statement of opinion.