logo
US trade deal makes Britain top investment destination in the world

US trade deal makes Britain top investment destination in the world

Telegrapha day ago
Britain has become the most attractive place to invest in the world after Sir Keir Starmer struck a trade deal with Donald Trump.
A survey of the finance chiefs of some of Britain's biggest listed businesses found that the UK was now their preferred country to invest in, overtaking the US, Japan and the Middle East. The UK has leapt up the rankings since the end of last year, when it came in at sixth spot.
Deloitte, which conducted the survey, said the boost was 'in the light of the UK-US trade deal announced in early May.' Conflict in the Middle East has also weakened that region's relative appeal as a destination for investment.
Ian Stewart, chief economist at Deloitte UK, said: 'Despite conflict in the Middle East and volatility in oil prices, levels of concern about geopolitical risk fell slightly in the second quarter. This may reflect an easing of concerns around trade in the light of the UK-US trade deal announced in early May.'
It comes as the world braces for the return of US tariffs on trading partners when a 90-day pause on Mr Trump's 'liberation day' levies expires this Wednesday. The president said be would notifying about a dozen countries on Monday of the new tariff level on their shipments to the US.
Treasury secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday that the new tariffs would take effect from August 1. He said several trade deals were close to completion.
'We're going to be very busy over the next 72 hours, ' Mr Bessent said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union.
'If you don't move things along, then on Aug 1, you will boomerang back to your April 2 tariff level.'
In the latest Deloitte survey, a net 13pc of UK finance chiefs described Britain as very or somewhat attractive for investment. Only India ranked as highly, with the two countries sharing the top position. Meanwhile, more finance bosses said they were open to expanding, with 17pc saying now was a good time to take risks.
The survey covered finance chiefs for both public and private businesses, including FTSE 100 companies. While they are UK-based, a majority of the companies surveyed have international operations.
Richard Houston, chief executive of Deloitte UK, said: 'This renewed confidence, coupled with a rise in risk appetite, is welcome and underscores the considerable investment potential the UK offers.'
Britain was the first country to secure a trade pact with the US in May. Mr Trump at the time hailed the UK as 'truly one of our great allies' and said it was a 'great honour' to have Britain sign the first deal with the United States.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Prime Minister secured lower tariffs on UK car imports into the US, while the aerospace sector was shielded from levies.
The Government called it a 'landmark' deal that would save thousands of jobs and make it easier for British companies to do business across the Atlantic.
The findings will be a welcome boost for the Government, which has been battling to convince companies to invest in Britain.
Last year, foreign investment into Britain plunged to a record low. Official figures showed the number of inbound foreign direct investment (FDI) projects dropped to 1,375 last year, down 12pc from the 1,555 in 2023-24.
Deloitte's positive findings also come after a torrid week for Labour that has seen Sir Keir's authority significantly weakened by a rebellion on cuts to welfare spending.
Ms Reeves said: 'Finance leaders see the UK as the best place in the world to invest. Under this Government we are open for business, delivering more investment, more jobs and putting more money in people's pockets across Britain.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

India ready for trade deals but not to meet deadlines, minister says
India ready for trade deals but not to meet deadlines, minister says

Reuters

time19 minutes ago

  • Reuters

India ready for trade deals but not to meet deadlines, minister says

NEW DELHI, July 4 (Reuters) - India is ready to make trade deals in the national interest, but not just to meet deadlines, Trade Minister Piyush Goyal said on Friday when asked whether a deal could be reached with the U.S. in time for a July 9 deadline set by Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to impose a 26% tariff on all imported Indian goods, among the tariffs due to take effect next week on countries around the world who fail to reach agreements before a deadline he set in April. "Free trade agreements are possible only when there is two-way benefit, it should be a win-win agreement," Goyal told reporters. "National interest will always be supreme. Keeping that in mind, if a good deal can be made, then India is always ready to make a deal with developed countries," he said. "India never does any trade deal on the basis of deadline or time frame…we will accept it only when it is completely finalised and in the national interest." Indian officials returned from Washington this week after an extended visit to iron out lingering concerns on both sides. Trade talks between India and the U.S. have hit roadblocks over disagreements on import duties for auto components, steel, and farm goods. India is resisting opening up its agriculture and dairy sectors while asking for a favourable tariff for its goods entering the U.S. compared to countries like Vietnam and China. Separately, India proposed retaliatory duties against the U.S. at the World Trade Organization, saying Washington's 25% tariff on automobiles and some auto parts would affect $2.89 billion of India's exports, according to an official notification. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump had earlier agreed to sign a bilateral trade agreement to expand trade to $500 billion by 2030, up from $191 billion in 2024.

Europe must prepare to support Ukraine without America
Europe must prepare to support Ukraine without America

Spectator

time24 minutes ago

  • Spectator

Europe must prepare to support Ukraine without America

It is unquestionably the case that people who should have known better were blinded by the Capri-Sun King's glare when they reassured us that Donald Trump would not abandon Ukraine, that a second Trump administration would not really cut off military aid to Kyiv or effectively offer a free pass to Vladimir Putin. Yet that is what is happening. Last week the US Department of Defense halted a planned delivery of air defence missiles and precision munitions to Ukraine, the third time this year that such a stoppage has been put in place. The weaponry was part of a supply programme agreed under President Biden, but was halted as the Pentagon undertakes a 'capability review' to assess stockpiles currently held by the United States. A spokesman explained: We can't give weapons to everybody all around the world. Part of our job is to give the President a framework that he can use to evaluate how many munitions we have and where we're sending them. And that review process is happening right now and is ongoing. However, the motivation behind the sudden decision, reportedly taken personally by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and without coordination or consultation either within the administration or with Congress, is suspect. Democrat Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said his staff had 'seen the numbers' and 'we are not at any lower point, stockpile-wise, than we've been in the three-and-a-half years of the Ukraine conflict'. President Trump has made no secret of his attitude towards Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelensky or his scepticism of their cause. It is no surprise that a partisan as zealously loyal and conceptually unfit for office as Hegseth should mirror the commander-in-chief's instincts. For Ukraine, and for European security, this is serious. It is no coincidence that at the end of last week Russia launched its biggest air strikes on Kyiv since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in 2022, using more than 500 drones. Ukraine is believed to be running dangerously low on stocks of interceptor missiles for its US-supplied MIM-104 Patriot air defence systems, which made up part of the anticipated deliveries, as did FIM-92 Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missiles. There are reports that Ukrainian forces were reduced to using machine guns to try to bring down drones in the recent air strikes. It must now be clear to any observer – as it is certainly clear to a gleeful Kremlin – that the United States is not a reliable ally to Ukraine, unpredictable even in its reliability (some of the munitions to be transferred last week had already been loaded onto lorries in Poland before their delivery was stopped by the Pentagon). What is the solution? How do Ukraine's allies in Europe respond? Germany has already sent three of its own Patriot batteries to Ukraine, but last week it emerged that Chancellor Friedrich Merz has also discussed purchasing further missiles from the United States and sending them on to Ukraine. Merz and his SPD defence minister, Boris Pistorius, are keen for Germany to take a stronger leadership role on Ukraine. Major General Christian Freuding, who oversees the Special Staff for Ukraine at the Federal Defence Ministry in Berlin, noted that Nato's European members plus Canada had exceeded the estimated $20 billion (£14.7 billion) of military assistance from Washington last year. 'If the political will is there, then the means will also be there to largely compensate for the American support,' Freuding added. There are two parts to assistance to Ukraine. The first is the obvious support for defensive measures like Patriot missiles to protect the country from Russian air strikes. Germany's apparent intentions are welcome in that regard, and will make a real difference so long as President Trump does not also prove reluctant to countenance even the sale of weapons to third parties for shipment to Ukraine. The second part has to be assisting Ukraine in more active measures against Russia. If Ukrainian forces can take the fight to Russian bases and installations, and particularly if they can force Russia to pull forces further back from the border for safety, they will make themselves all the safer. We saw last November the effect that long-range strikes could have when the United States finally agreed to remove restrictions on the use of MGM-140 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles and the UK followed suit on Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Olaf Scholz had vetoed the supply of Taurus long-range missiles when chancellor of Germany. Merz has shifted Berlin's position, saying such a supply is 'within the realms of possibility' and agreeing a deal to help manufacture new precision strike weapons in Ukraine. America has been the biggest bilateral donor to Ukraine but it is not irreplaceable. If supplies from the United States are beginning to falter, however, European nations need to act quickly and decisively. Germany is doing so, and the UK, especially after lifting restrictions on Storm Shadow, has been generally reliable. We should not see assistance to Ukraine as separate from each country's national security: the threat from Russia is here, now, and it is being unleashed on the cities and armies of Ukraine. The West cannot and should not wait to respond.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store