The British general election was incredibly boring until John Prescott enlivened proceedings by biffing a protester on the jaw. Since we live in a society that expects prominent people to behave with an element of sang-froid no matter what the provocation, it's cheering to see that, deep down, they're still only a few moments away from a good scuffle. Members of Parliament must, in particular, get terribly fed up with the exaggerated politeness of addressing all their colleagues as "My Right Honourable Friend" while actually hating their guts - so it's not entirely surprising that the facade sometimes cracks. Though not usually with such an effect.
But the very controlled demeanour that we normally expect from people in the public eye (unless, of course, they're in a rock band or are professional footballers) makes them appear bland beyond belief.
Which is, no doubt, why hordes of people are giving John P. the thumbs-up despite murmuring that they don't really condone violence and that he should have known better.
It's the same in business. I've sat at innumerable meetings where people have disagreed profoundly but where their demeanour towards each other has been unfailingly polite. At the same time, I couldn't help thinking that a bit of a scuffle might clear the air completely instead of long hours of listening to men in dark suits telling other men in dark suits that they respect their view completely in a tone of voice that's really saying "what the hell are you trying to do you incompetent moron?".
However, despite the surface calm, passions in business can run just as deep as passions in politics as could be seen at the recent annual general meeting of Kuoni, the long-haul tour operator. Daniel Affolter, the ex-chairman, is in dispute with the company about payments from the Kuoni and Hugentobler Foundation, the company's biggest shareholder.
Last week I was talking about executives being overpaid - Daniel Affolter received a bonus of 8.1 million Swiss francs (€5.3 million) last year and was awarded a one million Swiss francs a year "golden parachute" in the event of losing his position as chairman. As a result, a group of directors decided that he would lose his job and they ended his contract (worth 1.7 million Swiss francs a year).
Mr Affolter wasn't taking this lying down and decided that he was going to chair the annual general meeting, despite the fact that the vice-chairman was already in place. This led to what was coyly described as a "fracas", during which Mr Affolter was restrained by security guards.
It makes the Smurfit and Eircom annual meetings, with their occasional slow handclaps and cups of tepid coffee, very dull by comparison. Clearly there's a lot more fun to be had on mainland Europe.
That is, of course, if you can pay your way around mainland Europe. Despite the fact that the introduction of the euro as a working currency is only months away, and (even more surprisingly) despite the fact that it has been the currency of financial institutions for the past two-and-a-half years, it still costs a fortune to transfer money from one European country to another. The last time I transferred funds abroad it cost me a whopping £45 (€57) in bank charges. Even purchasing a foreign currency draft costs between £15 and £25. The fee is a percentage of the total amount transferred, which I think is the biggest con in history. (Rather like estate agents and solicitors charging a percentage of the purchase price of a house. The work is still the same, after all.) I thought that I had the problem licked when I asked my bank to provide me with a chequebook designated in euros so that I could simply write a cheque and present it to the overseas bank - but then they told me that it was only valid in the Republic. What? Why? What's the point in a European currency if you can't write a cheque for the euro amount in whatever country you happen to be in? My damned statement arrives with a euro amount, for heaven's sake!
However, I'm not the only one who's a bit miffed by the costs. The European Commission has been pressurising the banks to cut their charges on cross-border transfers. The European average is currently €17 (heaven knows why Irish banks are charging over twice that) and the Commission hopes to bring down the average charge to €10 and is arguing (as I did, although vainly) that customers shouldn't have to pay high fees to transfer money within the euro zone if they can use the same notes and coins everywhere.
According to the banks, the reason that cross-border transfers will be more expensive than domestic transfers (which cost about one euro) is that their systems vary from country to country. And is that my problem? They've had plenty of time to standardise them, haven't they? Actually, I don't see how they're that much different. You debit one account, you credit another one. With Internet banking we could actually do the transfers ourselves at this point. But no, the banks want to make it appear difficult and they don't want to lose what is clearly a very nice little earner for them. Since one of the key objectives of the European Union is mobility of labour and since many people are now working in one country but being paid in another, this issue is an important one.
But the secretary general of the European Banking Federation thinks that a reduction of charges over the next few years would be a "remarkable achievement". So he's clearly not holding his breath for excessive charges to be reduced immediately. And although the banks and the federation are in the final stages of talks there are people who say that the whole thing could yet explode in their faces.
Rather like John Prescott, actually.
