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

jonsnow · 06-03-2010 03:10PM #1

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 · 06-03-2010 09:41PM

This post has been deleted.

yobr · 06-03-2010 09:48PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

Scofflaw · 07-03-2010 03:51AM

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

amused,
Scofflaw

luigi8738 · 07-03-2010 12:36PM

“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 · 07-03-2010 12:55PM

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 · 07-03-2010 01:01PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

ei.sdraob · 07-03-2010 01:03PM

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 · 07-03-2010 01:08PM

now that's an interesting moral dilema

Exile 1798 · 07-03-2010 01:13PM

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 · 07-03-2010 01:17PM

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 · 07-03-2010 01:20PM

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798 · 07-03-2010 03:05PM

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 · 07-03-2010 03:18PM

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 · 07-03-2010 03:47PM

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach · 07-03-2010 03:54PM

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 · 07-03-2010 04:07PM

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 · 07-03-2010 04:15PM

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 · 07-03-2010 04:17PM

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 · 07-03-2010 04:18PM

This post has been deleted.

silverharp · 07-03-2010 04:19PM

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 · 07-03-2010 04:19PM

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 · 07-03-2010 04:27PM

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798 · 07-03-2010 04:35PM

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 · 07-03-2010 04:47PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 07-03-2010 05:01PM

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798 · 07-03-2010 05:14PM

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 · 07-03-2010 05:19PM

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 · 07-03-2010 05:30PM

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 · 07-03-2010 06:17PM

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 · 07-03-2010 06:26PM

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?

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

Comments