Britain moves to protect its defence industry
 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...ign-influence/

Britain moves to protect its defense industry from foreign influence

LONDON – Defense and space industries are among nearly twenty sectors named by the British government in the introduction of new legislation Nov. 11 aimed at tightening regulations allowing it to block potentially hostile direct foreign investment.

The government said the National Security and Investment Bill will strengthen its ability to investigate and intervene in mergers, acquisitions and other types of deals potentially posing a threat to British national security. Artificial intelligence, robotics, military or dual-use technologies, satellite and space technologies, defense and critical suppliers to the government were among 17 industry sectors included in the new legislation. The new powers allow the government to act against investors from any country, including the United States.

“Under the National Security and Investment Bill, the government will be taking a targeted, proportionate approach to ensure it can scrutinize, impose conditions on or, as a last resort, block a deal in any sector where there is an unacceptable risk to national security,” said the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial strategy in a statement.

The acquisition of sensitive assets and intellectual property, as well as the acquisition of companies is covered by the legislation.....

Reporting of deals in the sectors covered by the legislation will be mandatory and companies could face heavy fines and the transactions made void if they fail to get approval from the Business department.

Britain’s effort to shut the door on unwelcome investors like the Chinese is part of a growing trend among Western nations.

Earlier this year the United States introduced mandatory notification requirements for transactions concerning specified types of businesses as part of a broader program of reform. The Australian government have also introduced legislation requiring foreign investors to seek approval to acquire a direct interest in sensitive national security businesses.

The powers pending before parliament are similar to those already in place with allies like France, Germany and Italy, said the government.....

"impose conditions on" - ah yes - we all remember how well that's worked in the past.... Cadbury's anyone?

Not sure a bar of Dairy Milk represents "an unacceptable risk to national security" however unpleasant our better halves may get in the event of a shortage.

Is anybody hostile trying to take over someone British? Like RR maybe?

I think HMG may still retain the proverbial Golden share in RR. This is more likely a response to Cobham - or the chip design house recently taken over by a US company?

Great work by the Government - I fully support this. :ok:

The cynic in me says, 50 years to late,

You are right, but it's better late than never.

Given the events of 2020, I'm taking this as the first of what I hope will be many steps in sticking it to the CCP, for what they have done to us. We don't want them having an easy ride to getting our good kit....

and I always thought it was "defence" .......... :) obviously Mrs Fairclough, of the blue rinse/grey hair and unerring board rubber thrower extraordinaire, taught me something incorrectly in the 1960's .......

" for what they have done to us" - which is what exactly? Sounds a bit like "life of Brian"

We sell them cars, TV shows, "financial services", design - they sell cheap clothes, TV's and mobile phones............... the UK hasn't sold any defense gear to China since 1945 and they've had nothing worth buying

Sure they spy on us and the Americans spy on us and the Chinese and we spy on........................

Yes, excellent work closing the stable door after the stables have been continually raided for decades. Just excellent.

Yes, it is a bit late for many ‘legacy’ industries, but not for those which will emerge in coming years as AI, directed energy, cyber, biotech, etc etc take an increasingly prominent role in our national security and a greater share of Defence expenditure. Cobham is a ‘red herring’ here. ARM, however...

I’m pleased that the government is finally taking action.

well they did want our old illustrious class carriers to convert into ahem.... schools.

"Defense"? Is that the Queen's English?

post #9 ???

Not entirely accurate, although the two programmes I was involved didn't give them the full UK spec.

no -its what happens when you type into a small phone when sitting in the back of a car.....................


Fixed. It gave me the irrits, too!

Senior Pilot

"Let's support our National Industry - but they really do need to compete on a level field and not sit on entertainment allowances that push them into realms of fiscal stupidity"

It s very hard for a country of 65 million people, devoted to buying houses and low taxes, to finance a modern fast jet programme on it's own. Even the largest states can't afford all the kit they'd like - it comes down to the desire to have the absolute best , state o the art. UK industry could probably design and build a Hunter-type replacement , which without all the bells and whistles on an F-35, would be cost effective. But would any air force order them?

Like I’ve always said, buy in and you destroy your home grown industry that has no option but to contract, losing both the skills in design and the ability to build the next generation of aircraft, they then continue to flog designs that are no longer relevant.
Hawk as good as it is has been, has been passed by in both design and operating efficiency by modern types from other Countries.
It amazes me that we end up having to build joint aircraft these days which will always be a compromise on what the U.K. wants as it has to meet the other countries requirements as well, when the likes of Sweden can produce in house some cracking aircraft that meet their countries requirements.

We don't have to... as I've written in another recent thread, it is a choice which suits industry (by making cancellation much harder) and suits the Whitehall establishment (some of whom see international collaboration as an end in itself, and others gladly share R&D costs for short term budgetary reasons). Michael Heseltine was reported to have said in relation to Eurofighter something along the lines of 'I don't care what you build, so long as it's a collaboration'. Military capability comes a distant third place and even when it does secure an occasional 'win' as with JSF, the industry/Whitehall machine fights back over time, as seen in the ongoing debate over whether we will get our intended 138 F-35s or plough money into an internationalised Tempest instead. The phrase 'military-industrial complex' does not accurately describe the dynamic in the UK, IMHO; it overstates the military's influence.