Castle symbolises proud past and Island’s enduring appeal in troubled times.
Wednesday 26th January 2011
Elizabeth Castle is usually seen as a symbol of Jersey’s strategic role in wars centuries ago, but it stands also as a reminder of when the Island first became a haven for wealthy individuals.
The future Charles II sought refuge in the Island twice in the mid 17th century and he did not come alone. Typical of royal families, an entourage of many hundreds were with them, including his brother the Duke of York, the future James II, many Lords and other senior courtiers from the court of the Stuart monarchy. They arrived in Jersey with their wealth and saw Jersey as a safe environment in turbulent times.
Some will have stayed, invested in property and begun to make their wealth work for them here in the Island. It is surely likely that when the royalists were able to return to England, following the death of Cromwell and the subsequent collapse of his regime, some will have stayed in Jersey and the likelihood is that others will have left some of their wealth behind.
The past informs the present
Why the history lesson? When talking to clients overseas who may have limited knowledge of Jersey, I think it is sometimes helpful to reflect on the Island’s historic role as a safe haven, its independent nature and its place in the world. In simplest terms, it belies the myth that Jersey is a finance centre of recent creation. It has been the role of Jersey through history to help manage the wealth of individuals.
If you trawled the history books, you would find many other examples of where Jersey has proved an appealing location, on occasions because it offered security and stability from a hostile environment. In the 18th century, it was French Huguenots exiled from France who moved to the Island and a century later, it was the turn of senior figures in the military who retired to Jersey after a successful army or navy career. Their arrival provided a boost to the local economy.
Further research will show that Jersey and its inhabitants have demonstrated their commercial aptitude and ability to innovate and adapt to meet the prevailing market conditions. Knitting was a successful Jersey industry in the Elizabethan age and today Americans I speak to are surprised to discover the origins of the name they give to the sweater they wear. Agriculture through the export of cider, tomatoes, potatoes and the ultimate symbol of the Island, the Jersey cow, was another industry where the Island competed successfully with larger markets across the world.
Lobbying is not new
The cod trade across the Atlantic Ocean become so successful for the Island’s merchants that at one time St Helier was listed as the sixth largest port in the United Kingdom in terms of trade. During this period of considerable expansion in Jersey, it was not unheard of for the Island to fall foul of HM Customs. For instance, in the 17th century one of the tasks of the newly formed Jersey Chamber of Commerce was to petition Parliament to persuade them to change the customs laws because Jersey’s ships were having their cargoes confiscated in ports abroad as they were in breach of UK customs laws. The Chamber succeeded and the fishing fleets expanded and the Island grew ever more prosperous as a result. Is this perhaps the first example of a Jersey organisation lobbying the UK Government for the benefit of the Island’s economy?
What does the past tell us about today? I think it proves that Jersey’s ability to punch above its weight in global commerce is nothing new and that Islanders have always been skilful in bringing commercial success to the Island by winning business from abroad.
Unique heritage
I think we should take this unique heritage into account when new obstacles to trade are put in front of us. There should certainly be no need for the Industry or Government to panic when new regulations are proposed which may impact adversely on Jersey. I’m thinking particularly of the EU’s Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive which caused considerable consternation to the funds industry when first mooted last year.
Jersey has proven in the past that it is resourceful, adaptable and innovative in its commercial dealings with the rest of the world. In the funds industry in the 1980s, this was proved to be the case when the Island faced the threat from the first UCITs directive from Brussels. While the new regulations in 1985 made Luxembourg and Dublin far more attractive locations for the marketing of retail funds into Europe and there was an exodus of some providers from Jersey, it did not derail the funds industry locally. Instead, it prompted the Island to diversify its funds offering to appeal more widely to institutional clients in many more parts of the world. The result was a more balanced industry and a significant contribution by the sector to the huge prosperity that the Island enjoyed in the nineties and early part of this century.
In my view we need to take this balanced approach when tackling this latest EU Directive. There are reports of some Jersey firms opening or expanding offices in London so they are ready for the implementation of the EU Funds Directive because they fear Jersey will not be able to compete if they are excluded from EU markets. I think companies should bare the Island’s proud history in mind before making strategic decisions in response to regulatory changes imposed by our neighbours.
Jersey is lobbying on the matter and it has a powerful ally in the City of London which also opposes the Directive as proposed. The Island’s industries have always been resourceful, innovative and adaptable and I remain confident that through negotiation and a willingness to revise our regulations and laws swiftly when required, the Island’s Funds Industry has a productive future which will continue to support the local economy.
Ian Moore, chairman, Moore Goup.
PR-260111.pdf