Though Cowards Flinch

Unable to sleep last night, I flicked on Radio 4 and listened to the aftermath of elections in Sark. The Privy Council signed off in April on plans for the election of 28 members to a 30-member assembly and the elections took place last Thursday. The result: a hundred job losses, caused by investment withdrawal by the Barclay brothers, owners of the Ritz, the Telegraph, the Scotsman and other interests.

That’s a strange result to be sure, but the background explains more. The Barclay brothers live on the island of Brecqhou, in Sark’s territorial waters. They’ve been fighting for the democratic cause through the European Court of Human Rights. In the elections, they put up a slate of candidates, only five of which were elected. Subsequently, the Barclays made the announcement that they were withdrawing investment.

Lest we side with the Barclays, we should remember that this battle for democracy has been accompanied by other, rather more self-interested litigation. They have also gone to the ECHR to “overturn a local inheritance law requiring property to be left only to the oldest male heir and also the “treizième tax,” which dedicated one-thirteenth of the sale price of property to the Seigneur.”

A Barclay brothers representative told the BBC:

The people of Sark are reaping what they sowed the day before. They only have themselves to blame. They could have co-operated with Barclays Investment but they chose to obstruct it. It was clear the Barclays were clear on their commitment to the island with support – they got no support at all.

Sark doesn’t appear to want or appreciate the Barclays’ investment and so it doesn’t have it. The island cannot at the same time treat the Barclay family in the way that it has and expect them to continue investing large sums of money into its economy. (Hat tip)

This followed David Barclay’s threat, prior to the election, that their continued investment depended upon the election of Barclay-slate candidates. So naked was this blackmail, this threat that people could either use their democratic vote to further the Barclay’s own ends or face economic sanctions, that on Jersey, the Senate and its officiator have sent a message of solidarity to the new Chief Pleas of Sark – which doesn’t even meet for the first time until January.

The reaction of the Barclays was swift: people simply woke up one morning to find dozens of businesses closed, with notes hanging up. I hope, of course, that the people of Sark won’t take this lying down – and indeed there is a meeting scheduled for Monday between the newly unemployed, representing about a sixth of the island’s population, and the Chief Pleas. Some videos showing people’s reactions can be seen here.

Whilst it is true that no one can say they are surprised by the Barclays’ move, announced as it was by the Telegraph, equally no one can regard the Barclays as blameless. Apparently they branded one opponent as a ‘talibanist’ and another as being ‘socialist’. Bearing in mind this scaremongering, I can’t think why these pillars of the capitalist establishment should want a fully democratic state, rather than a Chief Pleas full of landowners who inherited their seats.

Could it be that they think the plebs will be easier to scare or bully? If ever anyone wanted to establish a link between capitalism and democracy this is it. The Barclays could make millions from their demands to introduce cars and helicopters to Sark, transforming it from a sleepy throwback to (one suspects, what with the purchase of golf courses and so on) a millionaires’ playground.

Just to spite the Barclays, I think the British government should immediately announce that it will fund the reopening of every closed business. Hell, the government should issue compulsory purchase orders for all Barclay properties on Sark. No Labour voters read the Telegraph anyway, except to laugh at Tory propaganda. We can’t simply allow them to get away with such naked bullying of an entire electorate.

Frankly it’s a disgraceful state of affairs. At the very least, we should demand that no one ever again buys the Telegraph or the Scotsman.