'Choose France' summit to bring 20 billion euros of new investment
Macron's personal efforts to woo international business leaders, making the Choose France summits at the opulent Palace of Versailles a must-attend for the global corporate elite, have been credited for a turnaround in past investor perceptions of France as a high-tax, sclerotic economy.
Last year's gathering raised 15 billion euros. An additional 17 billion euros worth of projects have already been pledged ahead of the start of 2025's event later on Monday, Finance Minister Eric Lombard said on RTL radio.
U.S. logistics giant Prologis is set to invest 6.4 billion euros in four data centres in the Ile-de-France while London-based fintech Revolut plans to invest 1 billion euros over the next three years on expanding in France and will apply for a French banking licence.
Announcements are also expected from companies ranging from Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab to the United Arab Emirates' MGX and Britain's Less Common Metals Limited in the rare earth sector. Portuguese company Tekever will build a drone assembly factory in the southwest, a 100 million euro investment, the Elysee said.
Macron's government is under pressure to stem a wave of job cuts in industry, as upheaval fuelled by U.S. President Trump's trade policies puts further pressure on Europe's flagging economy.
"Amid worldwide competition, France shows it has weapons, France is on the offensive to attract investments," Lombard said, reiterating that the government should be able to meet a 2025 target for economic growth of 0.7%.
France has been the leading recipient of international investments for the past six years, according to EY's European Investment Monitor, an annual survey of thousands of business leaders that Macron's advisers have seized on as evidence his cocktail of supply-side reforms have been bearing fruit.
However, this year's edition shows the number of investment projects has declined for the second consecutive year across Europe, while those in the United States rose by a fifth between 2023 and 2024, which EY said reflected the appeal of the Inflation Reduction Act subsidy package and Trump's pro-business promises.
Despite the foreign investment flows into France, Macron has failed to stop French companies from making huge investments abroad, with Sanofi's (SASY.PA), opens new tab plan to spend at least $20 billion to boost manufacturing in the United States angering French politicians.
($1 = 0.8899 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain's best places to buy a holiday let
However, for those looking to invest, a slump in coastal house prices in areas popular with visitors may provide a good opportunity. Inflated house prices as a result of the 'race for space' during the pandemic are now unravelling, says Lucian Cook, of estate agency Savills. 'Although running costs are now higher for holiday let hosts, competition to buy these homes has fallen, as have prices,' he says. The introduction of double council tax for second home owners is also likely to be dampening demand for properties in these areas. House prices in the prime coastal locations have dropped 15.7pc since 2022 and 6.7pc since last year. Before making a commitment, consider the costs associated with being a holiday let owner. Where to invest? If you are considering becoming a holiday let owner, location is critical. New research from The Telegraph reveals 10 of the most affordable and suitable locations to invest in, spread evenly across the country and without repetition within an area. The index considers the average annual turnover, hours of sunshine, number of nights let on average in the area, and the level of competition from other holiday lets, among other metrics. Our research found Southwold in Suffolk has the highest average property price, while the cheapest place to buy is Haworth in West Yorkshire. However, holiday lets in Crantock in north Cornwall generate the highest annual turnover. Here are Britain's 10 best places to buy a holiday let:
Auto Blog
5 hours ago
- Auto Blog
How Selling European Models Could Revive Nissan In North America
By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Nissan's current situation is troubling Although it's certainly not the most recent news, Nissan's financial struggles are still relevant as the brand rushes to bring out new products, aiming to turn around the Japanese automaker's reputation in North America and to get its balance sheets out of the red. What you may or may not know is that Nissan is partnered with French automaker Renault, and it was announced earlier this month by Fortune that Renault has seen $11.2 billion wiped off the face of the Earth just to cover Nissan's losses. Despite their recent troubles, Nissan's team is making a serious effort to get things back on track, and that all begins with the most important thing: their products. Throughout 2025, Nissan has been rolling out a freshly revamped model lineup, ranging from an updated 2026 Nissan LEAF EV to the burly new Nissan Armada, a full-size body-on-frame SUV with four-wheel drive and a twin-turbocharged V6. A Nissan-Honda merger could be back on the table Watch More 2026 Nissan LEAF — Source: Nissan While Nissan's efforts to refresh and revitalize its lineup haven't gone unnoticed, it's also been glaringly obvious that the brand's product portfolio has a few notable gaps. Buyers and Nissan dealers alike have been urging Nissan to revive the iconic Xterra — a rugged off-roader SUV that once shared its platform with the Frontier pickup truck and competed directly with the Toyota 4Runner. As these overland-ready off-roaders have grown in popularity immensely, it seems like a major missed opportunity for Nissan, especially considering the fact that the Frontier itself received a major update not too long ago. However, I don't think the gaps in Nissan's lineup begin and end with the Xterra, and in fact, it seems there's an entire selection of models that Nissan could offer North American buyers, but simply doesn't. I'm referring to European models, such as those from Renault, Dacia, and even Alpine, which have achieved sales success and critical acclaim across the pond. I can't help but wonder why Nissan doesn't offer European models from its partner companies, which are sure to be popular with American audiences. Using generative text-to-image artificial intelligence, we take an imagined look at what rebadged models from Renault, Dacia, and Alpine could look like rebranded as Nissans for the North American market. These images are purely for speculative and entertainment purposes and in no way reflect any actual Nissan, Renault, Dacia, or Alpine products. Nissan should sell the Dacia Duster in North America 2026 Nissan Duster — Source: Cole Attisha Using Midjourney AI Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Affordable yet rugged crossovers are all the rage right now–just look at Subaru's Wilderness models, Honda's Trailsport editions, and Toyota's TRD Pro versions. Even Nissan is chasing the rugged lifestyle buyers with its Rock Creek Editions and Pro 4X models, and bringing the venerable Dacia Duster stateside with a set of Nissan badges and an updated fascia could make the allure of a tough, utilitarian crossover more accessible to the market. In the United Kingdom, the Dacia Duster has a starting MSRP of just £19,380 (around $26,000 when converted to $USD), meaning Nissan could potentially offer a 130-horsepower mild-hybrid crossover with optional four-wheel drive to American buyers for under $30,000. If that sort of offer couldn't resonate with American buyers, I don't know what would. Nissan Duster Concept — Source: Cole Attisha Using Midjourney AI Additionally, Nissan could offer the Dacia's upgraded, full-hybrid power plant–the turbocharged 1.6-liter 'Hybrid 140' powertrain, which delivers a combined total of 140 horsepower and around 150 lb-ft of torque to all four wheels. A Nissan-branded Dacia Duster could offer a rugged rival to the popular Subaru Crosstrek, albeit with mild-hybrid and full-hybrid powertrain options. Nissan should sell the Dacia Bigster as an American-market X-Trail Nissan X-Trail Concept — Source: Cole Attisha Using Midjourney AI Before the Rogue became the hot commodity it is today, Nissan sold the X-Trail–a boxy, camping-friendly crossover–all over the globe. It was even sold in North America, and was hugely popular in Canada and Mexico, but Nissan decided not to sell it in the USA for some reason. These days, the global Nissan X-Trail is really just the Nissan Rogue that we see (quite constantly) roaming the streets here at home, but I think there's still a market in North America for the type of vehicle that the X-Trail once was. Nissan X-Trail Concept — Source: Cole Attisha Using Midjourney AI Offering boxier proportions and a more rugged four-wheel drive system, the Dacia Bigster-based Nissan X-Trail could be to the Nissan Rogue what the Ford Bronco Sport is to the Escape, or perhaps what the Mazda CX-50 is to the CX-5. Available with either a 140-horsepower turbocharged 1.2-liter three cylinder, or a 155-horsepower 1.8-liter four-cylinder hybrid powertrain, the Dacia Bigster's mechanical guts might win over American buyers left untouched, but I think a more powerful beating heart, such as the 1.5-liter VC-Turbo three-cylinder found in the current Rogue (which makes a stout 201 horsepower and 225 lb-ft of torque), would be a much more suitable motor. Lastly, Nissan should bring the Alpine A110 to North America Nissan A110 Concept — Source: Cole Attisha Using Midjourney AI For years, we've begged Alpine to bring the glorious, turbocharged, mid-engine sport coupe to American roads. Unfortunately, we've yet to see it bless our shores, but maybe Nissan could change that. Now might be the perfect time to do so, considering that Toyota is seriously considering reviving the MR2, and Porsche is converting its Cayman and Boxster models to fully electric powertrains, which will inevitably alienate many of their loyal buyers. A Nissan-branded Alpine A110 in North America could help fill the gap in this desirable segment, putting itself up against the likes of the Lotus Emira and a potentially upcoming Toyota MR2 using its 296-horsepower turbocharged 1.8-liter four-cylinder, mounted behind the cabin, and paired with a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission and rear-wheel drive. Nissan A110 Concept — Source: Cole Attisha Using Midjourney AI Adding the A110 to Nissan's American lineup might not make for a superstar sales success, but it would certainly liven up the image of a brand that was once a champion of fun, affordable sports cars. Perhaps, too, we could see the return of fan favorites like the Nissan Silvia, the Stagea 260RS wagon, and the Pulsar GTI-R. Final thoughts While Nissan dares to think outside of the box to get things back on track, perhaps also thinking inside the box might provide some much-needed help. Rebranding European products from the same brand umbrella is a strategy for automakers that seems as old as time itself, from General Motors selling Opels as Buicks and Saturns in the 2000s to Ford replacing the hot-selling Escape with the European-styled Ford Kuga. I'm rooting for Nissan, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the brand goes about turning things around and returning to profitability, but it'll be a long and winding road to get there. And hey, there's not much else you could ask for on a long and windy road than a mid-engine Alpine A110 ;). About the Author Cole Attisha View Profile
Times
9 hours ago
- Times
Palestinians are prisoners of geography, but statehood is possible
A rose may be a rose by any other name, but a territory is different. What's in a place name? Geography, history, identity and … politics. That is why most of what follows is disputed by one side or another, and why the Israel-Palestine conflict remains so intractable. In recent days, France, Canada and the UK announced plans to recognise Palestine as a state at the United Nations general assembly in September. Already 147 countries out of 193 at the UN recognise Palestinian statehood. However, that has not made the 'two-state solution' envisaged 32 years ago in the Oslo Accords any likelier. Last month, Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, said it was no longer a goal of American policy. But on Saturday Hamas said it would not disarm until Palestinian national rights had been restored, 'foremost among them the establishment of an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital'. The statement left open if Hamas means all of Jerusalem but that is unlikely. In 2017 the group updated its 1988 charter and while it rejected 'any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea' it also said it considers a Palestinian state 'with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967 … to be a formula of national consensus'. This leaves the door open for Hamas accepting (possibly temporarily) Jerusalem being divided between its east and western parts, as it was before the Six Day War broke out on June 5, 1967. Perhaps emboldened by the global headlines that followed the French, British and Canadian announcements, Hamas appears to be trying to make itself part of future debate about statehood, including during the intense discussions which will come ahead of and during the UN General Assembly in New York. However, yesterday's statement brings us no closer to a ceasefire as it would take months if not years to negotiate the contours of statehood. The near future, like the past, brings areas of disagreement. They are always easier to spot than any common ground. Palestine is an ancient name, but its geographic area and political status have changed frequently over three millennia. The word derives from Philistia, the term the ancient Greeks used for a pocket of coastal land stretching along what is now Gaza. It was home to the Philistine people who had arrived from the Aegean in the 12th century BCE. The Israelites, who by then had conquered most of ancient Canaan, called them P'lishtim. The Philistines clashed with the Israelites, usually ending up on the losing side (see David and Goliath). They were eventually overrun by the Babylonians and by the 5th century BCE no longer existed as a people. Later, the Greeks referred to the entire land of Israel as Philistia, as did the subsequent Roman invaders who expelled most of the inhabitants of what they called Palaestina. Over the centuries this evolved into Palestine, or in Arabic, Falestina. History marched on, bringing with it the Islamic conquests, followed by the Ottoman Empire — both of which treated the land as part of a larger unit. Before the First World War, the terms Western Palestine and Eastern Palestine were used to refer to lands each side of the River Jordan, but contemporary understanding of existing political Palestine generally defines it as running from the River Jordan to the border with Israel — the West Bank — and the Gaza Strip. The Ottoman defeat in the First World War resulted in the Allies creating new political units. The British had issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, promising to help create a Jewish homeland on the understanding that 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine'. The result was the Mandate for Palestine. Originally it was to include Transjordan (Jordan) but the League of Nations approved two separate mandates. Over 25 years there was an influx of Jews, many of whom bought land. The communities clashed and in 1947 the British handed the problem to the UN. It proposed two independent states, with Jerusalem internationalised. The Jews said yes, the Arab countries said no. The following year the State of Israel was declared, followed immediately by the first Arab-Israeli war, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs fleeing, never to return. Jerusalem was divided, Egypt occupied Gaza, and Jordan annexed the West Bank. In the 1967 war, Israel captured East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, and began settling Jews in all of them. Since then, we have seen wars, uprisings, the building of the 'separation barrier', a withdrawal of settlers from Gaza but a huge increase in their numbers in the West Bank, and now the Gaza war. That is a rough and probably disputed tale of the Palestinian territories, but what of the people? Here we enter the emotional and mutually exclusive claims of historic tenancy and sovereign rights. Arab Palestinians point out they were the overwhelming majority of inhabitants for more than a thousand years. In 1917, they comprised about nine-tenths of the population. Many trace ancestry to the arrival of Arabs during the 7th century Islamic conquests. Others are from Syrian and Egyptian families who came seeking work in the early 20th century. A distinct Palestinian Arab identity had already begun to emerge in the 19th century, and there is now a strong sense of nationhood. Israeli Jews argue that there has been a continual Jewish presence in the lands for 3,000 years, and that this is the birthplace of their national identity. They contest the notion that they are alien to the region and point out that about 50 per cent of Israel's Jewish population are descendants of the 600,000 Middle Eastern Jews who were among the million or so who migrated, or were expelled from, Arab countries after 1948. The population of Israel now stands at 9.5 million, of which about two million are Arabs. The West Bank Palestinian population is 3.19 million and there are 2.1 million people in Gaza. However, the UN regards another 5.9 million people living outside the territory as Palestinian refugees. This brings us to contemporary politics. In 2011, President Abbas applied for Palestine to join the UN, and the following year it was granted non-member observer state status (which Switzerland also held until its people voted to join in 2002). The security council must agree to a country becoming a member before the application is sent to the UN general assembly; it can be vetoed by any of the permanent five members of the council (China, France, Russia, the UK and the United States). While the US remains primed to do just that, the Palestinian application is unlikely to proceed, despite the recent announcements by France, the UK and Canada. The three western powers have at least helped to resuscitate discussion around a two-state solution. There is urgency here: continued Israeli settlement of the West Bank means the window of possibility is closing. At some point the geography for two states will not work. That is why the more significant declaration this week was by the 22-member Arab League. EDUARDO MUNOZ/REUTERS For the first time it backed a declaration at the UN in New York that condemned Hamas for the massacres on October 7, 2023, as well as subsequent Israeli actions. It called on Hamas to hand its weapons to the Palestinian Authority and stand down, and, in another first, hinted at the normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. The text calls for 'tangible steps in promoting mutual recognition, peaceful coexistence, and co-operation among all states in the region'. This is significant because it is possible that the key to unlocking recognition of Palestine is full Arab recognition of Israel. However, pre-existing problems, and a new one, put a roadblock in front of this potential progress. • Why Israel can't brush off France's recognition of a Palestinian state The new barrier was the US State Department's announcement of sanctions against the Palestinian Authority for 'continuing to support terrorism, including incitement and glorification of violence (especially in textbooks) and providing payments and benefits in support of terrorism to Palestinian terrorists and their families'. Washington knows the Palestinian Authority pays the families of suicide bombers stipends, an accusation it has levelled for years — so why issue sanctions, including visa bans, now? It is clearly to undermine the new international push for a two-state solution, including the Arab-led plan for Gaza's reconstruction, with policing undertaken by Egyptian-trained Palestinian Authority police. Less clear is if this indicates that President Trump will never allow a Palestinian state, or that he will, but wants to ensure only he can bring it about (and thus win a Nobel peace prize). Within two days, Trump went from 'having no view' on world leaders saying they would recognise Palestine to castigating Canada's prime minister, Mark Carney, for doing the same thing. A post on his Truth Social platform said: 'That will make it very hard for us to make a trade deal with them. Oh Canada!!!' Some of the pre-existing problems were contained in the New York declaration. It reiterated that the 5.9 million Palestinian refugees have the 'right of return' to the places in Israel they left in 1948. The UN categorises as refugees the descendants of Palestinians who fled. Israel asks why only Palestinians have this UN status and says there is no way it would ever allow almost six million Palestinians to enter its borders. We are back where we began — definitions. The most used criteria for statehood are in the 1933 Montevideo convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, the capacity for external relations. Opposing sides argue about whether Palestinian refugees should be included in the definition of a permanent population, and what are the defined borders. Some will say the Palestinian Authority can be an effective government and others that it is a corrupt fossil with little authority over the West Bank, never mind Gaza, which was/is run by Hamas. Perhaps, though, these are technicalities that can be overcome by compromise. Ah yes — compromise. For almost 80 years, since the United Nations became involved, the failure to compromise on rights, territorial inheritance, geography and competing historical narratives has often led to 'provisional' agreements on the intertwined futures of Israel and the Palestinian territories. But as the adage goes, sometimes nothing is so permanent as the provisional.
