Billionaires close island businesses after election goes against them

[Newsjock]

Source: The Independent

Dismayed Sark islanders expressed their outrage last night after it emerged that the billionaire Barclay brothers had closed down all their business interests on the island, resulting in the loss of more than 100 jobs out of a total population of 600.

Yesterday was supposed to have been a day of celebration as the islanders counted the results of their first fully democratic election. On Wednesday they went to the polls to turn Europe's last feudal state into a democracy.

Instead, more than 100 islanders face unemployment as a bitter feud between the billionaire newspaper magnates and the island's political establishment continued.

Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, owners of The Daily Telegraph, warned in a newspaper interview this week that they might stop their investments if the elections went against them.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sark-feels-wrath-of-the-barclay-brothers-1062877.html

[Schema Thing]

1. Stay classy, filthy rich people.

[babylonsister]

2. So democracy goes against their principles?

:grr:

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

4. Actually, yes. Yes it does.

Now that the rabble can vote, who knows what might happen?

[Doctor_J]

9. Well, duh

Many billionaires in the US aren't too pleased with the workings of democracy here lately either.

[economicgeography]

3. For some reason

I don't think they're too concerned about upsetting people.

[Xithras]

5. To be fair...

I did a little reading. It appears that the Barclay's wanted to completely eradicate the feudal system and replace it with a democracy. They were upset because: 1) The new government will be keeping two high level positions as hereditary; 2) Most of those elected were apparently the same feudal leaders who had controlled the island before the election.

Their reaction is pretty infantile, but I happen to agree with their objection to the result. Governments based on bloodlines are generally a bad thing.

On edit:

Also, the island, though democratic, still has a feudal land structure. A few landowners control the property, and everyone else is a tenant. Before the election, the landowners got together and decided how to run the island a few times a year. After the election, those landowners (voted in by their tenants...who may well have feared reprisals had they not done so) still get to meet a few times a year to determine how the island is run.

The Barclay's are mad because the election didn't change much.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

6. Have a link on that?

This is a really interesting case. I still think they're doing the wrong thing, but your added information definitely makes a seemingly black-and-white story many shades of gray.

[w4rma]

8. The Barclays' experiment didn't work in Iraq, why would they think it would work here? (nt)

[struggle4progress]

11. Wait ... the Barclays were happy to invest while Sark was completely feudal but

when most feudal positions are eliminated they're leaving because Sark is too feudal? And if this were really about the seigneur and seneschal, why did the Barclays wait until after the election to announce their pull-out, rather than announcing it as soon as they lost their court case more than a week ago?




Barclay brothers' Sark poll bid fails
By Megan Murphy
Published: December 3 2008 02:00 | Last updated: December 3 2008 02:00

The billionaire Barclay brothers have failed to block next week's election on the island of Sark after the Court of Appeal yesterday rejected their case that the changes to create an almost wholly elected parliament were not sweeping enough.

Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, proprietors of the Daily Telegraph and owners of around a fifth of Sark, argued that despite the removal of the 40 landowners from the parliament, the unelected seigneur and seneschal would still play a role.

The court ruled that the seneschal's role as both presiding officer of the parliament and the island's judge was contrary to human rights law and was inconsistent with modern democratic principles. However, it said it should be left to the Channel Island's new parliament to make appropriate changes in line with its ruling. Jennifer McDermott, the Barclays' lawyer, said the brothers would consider applying to the Lords for leave to appeal. Megan Murphy

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b33258dc-c0db-11dd-b0a8-000077b07658.html


From The Times
December 3, 2008
Channel Island of Sark in breach of human rights
Sark. The Appeal Court in London has ruled that the Channel Island of Sark has breached the European Convention on Human Rights but has allowed a vote to take place that could lead to reforms. The judges said that the dual role of the island’s unelected Seneschal, as president of its parliament and the senior judge, could raise doubts over impartiality. The case was brought by the brothers Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, who own land on the island. They argued that the new constitution for the island, approved by the Privy Council in London, did not meet modern requirements for free elections. The island will vote this month on a Reform Law that would create an almost wholly elected parliament. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5276149.ece

Sark gets a democratic choice: for the Barclay brothers or against them
Tycoons' man takes on the islands' seigneur, as contest for the final feudal state in the western world turns bitter
... But two bitterly opposed factions have emerged. Broadly, one supports the Barclay twins, DB and FB as their loyalists call them. They are ploughing millions of pounds into the main island, refurbishing that bumpy main drag and buying up most of Sark's hotels. The twins argue that this investment is creating jobs and protecting Sark's future. A second faction favours the seigneur, Michael Beaumont, and is worried that the Barclay twins are trying to seize control of the island and will change its character for ever. This split is causing terrible tension amongst Sark's 600 souls as election day nears. On street corners and in smoky backrooms - they still smoke in pubs here - plots are being hatched and alliances formed as the factions fight for control of "chief pleas," the island's parliament ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/24/sark-channel-islands-democracy

Purely on policy grounds, my natural sympathies should lies with the Barclays' current stand that the Constitution should not countenance hereditary positions -- but in the context of current local political considerations, the apparent fight over hereditary positions may be a mere surrogate for other issues, such as who controls the island's development

[L0oniX]

7. The rats are scrambling n/t

[Bozita]

10. The Barclays sound just like US Senate Republicans.

[4_TN_TITANS]

12. Freedom isn't Free? n/t