8 ★ FINANCIAL TIMES Tuesday20 August 2019If Ireland is so rich they
forgot to tell us citizens
If Ireland is so wealthy then a lot of its
populace are unaware of it. Of course
The Economist made a similar claim
circa 2007 and look what happened.
Perhaps David McWilliams
(“Punishing Ireland’s economy will
backfire on Brexiters”, August 19) can
explain to me why, if Ireland is indeed
so wealthy, I pay 52 per cent of my
income to the state, 30 per cent more
for a motor car than the average
European due to a special tax (VRT),
despite the s- called single market, not
to mention high rates of VAT and
stealth taxes on everything ranging
from property to a glass of wine (50 per
cent). The statistic on income is I
suspect deeply flawed.
When it comes to bullying by a
bigger power, Mr McWilliams has a
selective memory. I seem to recall
France demanding we give up our 12.
per cent corporate tax rate in exchange
for the Troika bailout (where would
that have left us?), whereas Britain put
its hand in its pocket to voluntary loan
us £8bn without conditions.
Moreover by not allowing us to burn
the French and German institutional
bondholders who invested in our banks
or buy back bonds in the secondary
market trading at a massive discount,
the European Central Bank has
inflicted a decade of misery and
austerity on Ireland, costing us by
conservative estimates €60bn-plus. I
seem to recall ECB president Jean-
Claude Trichet telling our elected
Taoiseach at the time (Enda Kenny)
that there would be bombs going off in
Dublin if we dared defy the will of the
EU/ECB. Regrettably our government
meekly complied.
John Turner
Foxrock, Dublin, IrelandNovember election need
not frustrate extension
In his blog “Once Britain is out of the
EU, it is out” (FT.com, August 14),
David Allen Green has, unintentionally
I am sure, misunderstood my
argument concerning the possibility of
retrospective legislation deeming that
Britain had not left the EU were that to
be the wish of voters in a November
general election.
He writes that it is beyond the
competence of a sovereign parliament
alone to extend the Brexit date. I am of
course perfectly aware that, as I stated
in my original comment, the
“agreement” of the EU is also
necessary.
My critics have argued that it is
beyond the competence of the
European Council and the European
Commission to act with retrospective
effect. In my view, they have not
studied Article 50 carefully enough,
nor looked at the history of
retrospective acts on the part of the EU,nor indeed at the fact that the
European Court of Justice is generally
unwilling to declare an act supported
by the council and commission
unconstitutional.
I therefore hold to my view that a
November election would not
necessarily frustrate an extension of
the Brexit date. Whether that would be
desirable is of course another matter
entirely. But it seems to me that a
November election could not help but
be a further referendum on Brexit.
Vernon Bogdanor
Professor of Government,
King’s College London, UKWe are talking about
national ‘disunity’ here
The FT continues (most recently in
David Allen Green’s blogof August 14)
to describe a plan to frustrate the result
of the referendum, by bringing
together a coalition of variously
motivated Remainer MPs, as “a
government of national unity”.
Can someone at the FT explain to us
how explicitly preventing the wishes of
the largest group of voters ever to
opine on anything in the UK can
possibly be described as “national
unity”?
Jon Moynihan
London SW3, UKWe’ve had total freedom to
shoot ourselves in the foot
In what way have we given up our
“priceless freedom” by being members
of the EU? (Letterfrom Berenice
Weston, August 16). We have been free
to hold a referendum on our
membership, and then to shoot
ourselves in the foot after the narrow
result. Does belonging to Nato, to the
United Nations, count as losing
freedom? And are all co-operations
internationally to be avoided?
Maureen Green
Kew, Surrey, UKRegulators forced me out
of my long-term position
Eric J Redemann and his fellow
Americans are not alone (Letters,
August 13). Oakley Capital
Investments, a private equity company
currently quoted on London’s
Alternative Investment Market, has
decided to move to the specialist fund
segment of the London Stock
Exchange’s main market on August 23.
The only individuals who can trade
stocks quoted in the segment are those
recognised as professional investors by
their intermediaries. I hold my
investments through Halifax Share
Dealing Ltd which apparently decided
some time ago that it would not make
this classification available to any of
their clients.
My choices were, therefore, to sell
the stock before August 23 or,thereafter, find another intermediary
who would do so. The latter option
may not be viable so I chose the
former.
I regard myself as a likely long-term
holder of Oakley who has been forced
out of his position by a nonsensical
regulation. The admission document
begins: “The Ordinary Shares are only
suitable for investors: (i) who
understand and are willing to assume
the potential risks of capital loss and
that there may be limited liquidity in
the underlying investments of the
Company; (ii) for whom an investment
in the Ordinary Shares is part of a
diversified investment programme;
and (iii) who fully understand and
are willing to assume the risks involved
in such an investment.” Parts (i) and
(ii) are common precautions
applicable to any portfolio and its
holdings, while (iii) does not stand up
to analysis: how many investors “fully
understand” the risks involved in all
their investments?
I can, apparently, buy any AIM stock
I like, or indeed shares in any industry
I choose whose activities may be
substantially outside the UK, yet am
debarred from investing in a well-run
private equity fund by UK regulators.
Keith Billinghurst
London SE9, UKOdebrecht officials had
no dealings with me
In your Big Readarticle on Latin
America (August 12), you wrongly put
my picture as one of three “Lima
leaders wooed by Brazilian bribery
machine”. There is sworn testimony in
a Brazilian courtroom of Odebrecht
officials, who in a plea bargain swore
that they had never negotiated
anything with me or met me. The
official transcript of that testimony has
been kept under lock and key since
March. Could it be that it does not help
the investigators’ undoubtedly
politicised campaign?
Pedro-Pablo KuczynskiThe first time I visited Srinagar in
India’s volatile Kashmir Valley was in
the summer of 2008, a season of angry
public protests against plans to
transfer state land to a Hindu shrine. I
was taken aback by the overwhelming
Indian military presence there.
The mountainous Muslim-majority
region, long extolled for its scenic
beauty, was two decades into a
Pakistan-backed separatist
insurgency, but the militant violence
had declined sharply and tourists
were flocking back. Even so, Srinagar’s
main thoroughfares seemed to have
tanks and armed commandos on
every block. Out of town, military
convoys, with scores and scores of
trucks, wound down rural roads.
“Is this Indiaor Iraq?” I joked with
my Indian companion, a first-time
visitor who was as surprised as me.
I also saw glimpses of the conflict’s
continuing toll. I met a human-rights
activist who’d lost his leg to a
landmine blast while monitoring the
2004 general elections; two colleagues
were killed. A young man with a
severe nervous twitch recounted being
caught between militants and troops
as a boy. Doctors reported heavy loads
of patients with post-traumatic stress,
depression and anxiety.
Covering Kashmir’s state elections a
few months later, I arrived in a village
just hours after security forces shot
dead a 21-year-old, and wounded two
school children following a local
protest outside a polling station. The
piercing sound of the women keening
in grief — and the men’s palpableanger — is seared in my memory.
These experiences, tiny fragments
of a brutal conflict that has claimed
45,000 lives, have been on my mind
since Indian prime minister Narendra
Modi’s government this month
revokedthe state’s legal autonomy,
and brought it more firmly under New
Delhi’s control.
The administration heralded the
move as a “dawn of development” for
the “common people” of a state that
has been left out India’s economic
boom. Many Indians are elated at
what they seem to consider an
overdue measureto bring to heel a
bunch of Muslim troublemakers, in
whose name Pakistani terrorists have
repeatedly attacked India.
Kashmiris themselves are silent: cut
off and caged in, their communication
links severed. Public movement has
been restricted for two weeks, and
hundreds of political and civil society
leaders, including two former state
chief ministers and many other
former elected officials, have been
kept in “preventive detention”.
New Delhi insists these are much-
needed precautions to contain public
anger that could spiral out of control,
leading to potential deadly violence.
Yet the jarring juxtaposition of Indian
jubilation and the silencing of
Kashmiris suggests a profound lack of
empathy for their suffering. It is this
lack of recognition of the trauma of
the conflict, and its attendant human
rights abuses, that makes Mr Modi’s
move such a risky gambit.
New Delhi has long wished to quellthe separatist militancy, see tourism
return to the valley, and then just
move on, with no attempt at justice,
reconciliation or even
acknowledgment of past wounds.
Little wonder that even as violence
fell to its lowest ebb a decade ago,
Kashmiris were still resentful. For
them, the face of the Indian state is
the soldiers who treat them with wary
suspicion, or worse. In recent years
crowds of civilian protesters have
been fired on with “non-lethal”
pellets, blinding hundreds.
The prime minister, like others
before him, wants to win over an
alienated population with the promise
of goodies— this time jobs and new
educational institutions. But Mr Modi
has brought a new element to the
script: blaming Kashmir’s misery on
its local political dynasties, which
participated in electoral politics, often
allied with national parties,
throughout the insurgency.
Depicting these elites as rotten and
corrupt, he aims to deflect popular
anger, presenting himself as a
benefactor who can facilitate the
emergence of a new, untainted
political class. His government may
well believe Kashmiris are so weary of
conflict that they will embrace a fresh
start, without a genuine effort to win
over hearts and minds. But his bet
comes at a dangerous time of renewed
rage. The government-inflicted
lockdown is ensuring neither
memories, nor anger, will fade so fast.[email protected]Modi’s ‘dawn
of development’
is a dark hour
for Kashmir
New Delhi
Notebook
by Amy Kazmin
Although the Danes are reluctant to
sell Greenland, a land swap might be
quite reasonable. Greenland (836,
sq miles) is only slightly larger than the
Louisiana Purchase (828,000 sq miles).
An exchange of the two territories
could be a win for both sides. The
US would increase in size and gain
a hedge against global warming
while Denmark would become aneconomic powerhouse in the EU.
Of course, as a democrat I believe
there should be a referendum among
those within the former Louisiana
territory. Why would American
citizens want to become Danes? In 2018
the US ranked eighth in per capita
income while Denmark ranked ninth.
On the other hand, Denmark
consistently ranks among the happiestcountries in the world and has a longer
life expectancy. Personally, I would be
quite willing to trade a slight decrease
in annual income for increased
happiness and a longer life expectancy.
Younger voters and their parents
would find the free university tuition
quite appealing.
Bruce Couchman
Ottawa, ON, CanadaPerhaps the Danes would agree to a swap?
Letters
TUESDAY 20 AUGUST 2019Email:[email protected]
Include daytime telephone number and full address
Corrections:[email protected]
If you are not satisfied with the FT’s response to your complaint, you can appeal
to the FT Editorial Complaints Commissioner: [email protected]Correction
cPayments company Adyen did not
sell any new shares in its stock market
flotation, but it was not a direct listing as
wrongly suggested in an opinion article
on August 19.OPINION ON FT.COM
Andrew Hill
Lengthy feuds in family businesses almost
always harm value for outside shareholders
http://www.ft.com/andrew-hillThelatest crime figures from the jus-
tice ministry for England and Wales
make dismal reading — unless you hap-
pen to be a criminal. The number of
people dealt with by the justice system
fell by 2 per cent year on year in the 12
months to March to 1.59m — the lowest
since records were first collated in the
1970s. Prosecutions for the most seri-
ous offences fell by 8 per cent, even as
police-reported cases of overall crimes
rose by the same proportion.
After a decade of austerity, leading to
areal-terms cutof almost one-fifth in
central government funding for polic-
ing, the system is struggling to cope
with the demands.
British policing now faces a two-
pronged challenge: rebuilding basic
crime-fighting capabilities, and ensur-
ing these are future-proofed against a
rapid evolution in both the nature of
crime and methods for combating it.
Law enforcement means protecting
Britons from both a new wave of older
crimes and emergent threats.
Knife crime, which had declined
after 2007, has been steadily rising
since 2015. Central to the reversal is the
fact that there are now 20,000 fewer
police on the streets compared with
2010, while the number of arrests has
halved in the past decade. The effects
of cuts is heightened by an explosion of
drug and gang-related violence.
Police forces are also going up against
increasingly tech-savvy opponents
online. Viruses targetingbusinesses,
public bodies and even the police are
becoming more common. Potential
child exploitation has been discovered
on sites such asYouTube.
Fraud, which is not even included in
the justice ministry figures but saw an
estimated 17 per cent risein the past
year, is increasingly sophisticated. New
techniques allow criminals to intercept
emails and alter payment details from
legitimate senders.Prime minister Boris Johnson’s
promise to boost police numbers by
20,000,strengthen police powers, and
provide more prison places, is at least a
start, not least in the battle to rebuild
falling public confidence in law
enforcement. An investigation in The
Times last week found that calls to
report fraud were outsourced to poor-
ly-paid, badly-trained staff who did not
reveal that many of their reports would
not be looked at again. Few things
erode faith more than a belief among
citizens that the police are not inter-
ested in investigating the most com-
mon crimes.
UK law enforcement must also be
adequately prepared to deal with more
high-tech offences. Officers should
receive the sorts of training and access
to technology which can allow them to
pursue prosecutions of digital felons
who have often been able to operate
with impunity. Funding for specialist
police work such as forensic science
will be vital as well. In May, a Lords
committee warned that these services
were at “breaking point”.
Greater co-operation — both with
external partners and between forces
— is also needed. In the case of knife
crime, austerity cuts also affected
mechanisms such as funding for youth
services, which ensure links between
local communities and the law. Team-
work between local police can counter
cross-border crime and pool resources.
Crime prevention fundamentally
relies on the fear of criminals that they
will be caught. Mr Johnson, in his
speeches billing himself as a law and
order candidate, appears to have recog-
nised this, calling for felons to be made
“terrified” again.
More money is part of the answer,
but this must be accompanied by a
renewed commitment to tackling the
everyday crime which is most people’s
yardstick of police performance.The government must reverse the effects of cuts to law enforcement
Crime figures show need
for change in UK policing
An important shift may be under way
in corporate America. The largest US
business group has replaced the long-
held view that maximising shareholder
value is the defining corporate goal
with a more inclusive vision that takes
account of otherstakeholders. Explic-
itly elevating broader interests such as
those of employees, the environment
and customers is intended to set a new
standard for companies across the US.
This welcome, wider approach to
corporate purpose should create a
more sustainable and inclusive form of
capitalism. Business must now show it
is ready to put the change into practice.
The update of corporate purpose
from the Business Roundtableyester-
day encapsulates a major change in
thinking. The principle of shareholder
primacy has dominated US capitalism
for two generations and has, for more
than 20 years, been at the heart of the
BRT’s governance principles. Since the
BRT includes some of the largest US
companies representing $7tn in annual
revenues, its shift has at least the
potential to trigger broader changes in
corporate behaviour.
Pressure has been building for some
time. Maximising shareholder returns
has come at the expense of other stake-
holders and created incentives to pay
less tax. Investors and politicians such
as Democratic presidential hopefuls
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
have voiced concerns over rising dis-
parities between profits and wages,
leading to scepticism that business
may simply be trying to propose cos-
metic changes before more substantial
reform is imposed.Jamie Dimon, the
JPMorganCEO and Business Roundta-
ble chairman, has been aleading voice
in promoting change. In his annual let-
ter to shareholders in April, Mr Dimon
set out a list of issues that needed to be
addressed — including education,
immigration, and tax reform, andpromised JPMorgan would “take advo-
cacy to the next level”.
Scepticism about such lofty declara-
tions is in order. Corporate America
must now prove this is not just a sym-
bolic shift. One task is to align manage-
ment interests with the broader stake-
holder view. Over-reliance on share
price performance, long an integral
part of management incentives, and
often with a time horizon of just a year
or two, must change. Tying executive
pay to broader financial and non-finan-
cial performance measures would
ensure priorities are better aligned.
Companies should be encouraged to
articulate a purpose beyond merely
maximising profits. The BRT’s move
tacitly acknowledges that if businesses
ignore their responsibilities towards
society, they risk losing their licence to
operate.
Promoting longer-term interests will
undoubtedly run into conflict with
quarterly reporting requirements.
Offering better deals for employees and
suppliers, or investing in local commu-
nities, may enhance overall perform-
ance in the longer term, but hold back
profits in the near-term. Short-term
investors, or activists looking for an
immediate return, may dig in their
heels. Firm and clear statements of
long-term purposes may help persuade
the doubters.
One final way companies can prove
their commitment to a stakeholder
approach is to ensure it is not used as a
way to avoid paying tax. Incentives tied
to operating profits are one way around
this. Promoting a culture of investment
rather than share buybacks, would also
help. Fifty years of shareholder pri-
macy has fostered short-termism and
created an environment of popular dis-
trust of big business. A new corporate
purpose has the chance to generate
wealth more sustainably and to share
prosperity more evenly.Companies must realign incentives and define targets beyond profits
Business must act on a
new corporate purpose
Revolutionary approach
became ossified orthodoxy
While Laura Cappelle acknowledges
William Christie’s prominence as a
musician, her recognition of his status
and achievements is overly modest
(“Pastoral sympathy”, Life & Arts,
August 17). Granted, this is a story
about his garden, but his global
reputation might have warranted a few
more column inches.
Prior to the ascendancy of Mr
Christie and his colleagues, the French
baroque was accurately described by a
prominent critic as “the last, great,
unexploited repertoire”. It was seldom
recorded and even more infrequently
performed. And when it was, it
sounded so very different from today’s
iterations as to be virtually
unrecognisable. The big changes came
with the introduction of historically
informed performance practice, and
the use of period instruments, or copies
of same.
Sadly, or maybe inevitably, his
accomplishments were accompanied
by what some economists term
creative destruction. Prior to the
authenticity movement, audiences
heard music before Mozart in the
grandiose style of the Romantics. Often
these performances were pretty
pneumatic. The greatest exponent of
this bigger-is-better school was
Stokowski, whose take on early music
sought an immersion effect, wall-to-
wall sound as it were.
Even if some of them still make for
great listening, most of these old-
fashioned interpretations are now
curiosities, largely consigned to the
dustbin of vinyl history. Problem is,
what began as a novel, even
revolutionary approach, stressing
authenticity and historical accuracy,
has itself become an ossified
orthodoxy. And it has its enforcers.
Zealous authenticity cops, not unlike
the morals police in some Islamist
countries, patrol period orchestras to
flush out the odd steel string or rogue
valve that have crashed the party.
There is no guarantee that scores
vetted by academics, antiquarians and
other specialists will please the ear. A
French reviewer recently offered a
concise opinion of a historically correct
concert: “Painstakingly accurate, and
unaccountably mediocre.” I have sat
through a few of these, and would
furnish a less charitable judgment.
But back to the garden. Mr Christie is
obviously enjoying his well-deserved
golden years. Ms Cappelle suggests that
after three decades his famously
unfriendly Vendée neighbours even
acknowledge him on the street. In any
event, his current digs have to be a
substantial improvement over those of
his hometown, a suburb of gritty,
deindustrialised Buffalo, New York, the
so-called buckle of America’s snowbelt.
Especially in January.
Harvey Clark Greisman
Wilmington, DE, US
RELEASED
techniques allow criminals to interceptRELEASED
techniques allow criminals to intercept
emails and alter payment details fromRELEASED
emails and alter payment details fromBYyear, is increasingly sophisticated. New
BYyear, is increasingly sophisticated. New
techniques allow criminals to intercepttechniques allow criminals to interceptBY"What'sthe justice ministry figures but saw an"What'sthe justice ministry figures but saw an
estimated 17 per cent rise
"What'sestimated 17 per cent rise
year, is increasingly sophisticated. Newyear, is increasingly sophisticated. New"What'sNews"on sites such asNews"on sites such asYouTubeNews"YouTube
Fraud, which is not even included in
News"Fraud, which is not even included in
the justice ministry figures but saw anthe justice ministry figures but saw anNews"VK.COM/WSNWSthe justice ministry figures but saw anVK.COM/WSNWSthe justice ministry figures but saw an
estimated 17 per cent riseVK.COM/WSNWSestimated 17 per cent rise
year, is increasingly sophisticated. NewVK.COM/WSNWSyear, is increasingly sophisticated. New
techniques allow criminals to interceptVK.COM/WSNWStechniques allow criminals to intercept
emails and alter payment details from
VK.COM/WSNWSemails and alter payment details from
legitimate senders.legitimate senders. VK.COM/WSNWSTELEGRAM:emails and alter payment details fromTELEGRAM:emails and alter payment details from
legitimate senders.TELEGRAM:legitimate senders.t.me/whatsnwsthe justice ministry figures but saw ant.me/whatsnwsthe justice ministry figures but saw an
estimated 17 per cent riset.me/whatsnwsestimated 17 per cent rise
year, is increasingly sophisticated. Newt.me/whatsnwsyear, is increasingly sophisticated. New
techniques allow criminals to intercept
t.me/whatsnwstechniques allow criminals to intercept
emails and alter payment details fromemails and alter payment details fromt.me/whatsnws