0456775689795-612x612-picsay_1_1-picsay_optimized_450

UK Investment Zones: Will the self-governing zones enable the abuse of rights?

RHODA WILSON

The UK government is proposing 13 Investment Zones which will be governed by Mayoral Combined Authorities in partnership with businesses and universities. Businesses in these Zones will not only enjoy tax holidays but they will also be subsidised by UK taxpayers, and, again using taxpayers’ money, the Government will “share the risk” to ensure the selected businesses in these Zones don’t fail.

The problem of giving foreign corporations and Combined Authorities the freedom to govern these Zones with little interference from the Government is exemplified by the organised crime networks that use fraudulent postal votes to ensure candidates that preserve their interests are “elected” to local councils.

Table of Contents

Introduction to Investment Zones

UK Investment Zones are claimed to be a way of driving economic growth, innovation and job creation in defined areas across the UK. These zones offer a range of incentives to eligible businesses, including tax benefits and funding to attract investment. The Government plans to establish 13 Investment Zones across the UK, with eight in England, two each in Scotland and Wales, and an ‘Enhanced Investment Zone’ in Northern Ireland.

Each Investment Zone focuses on supporting at least one of the following priority sectors: advanced manufacturing, life sciences, green industries, digital and technology, and creative industries. The zones aim to foster collaboration between industry and research institutions, with at least one research institution in a priority sector supporting each zone.

One of the Investment Zones in England is the West Midlands Investment Zone. It includes three key sites: the Birmingham Knowledge Quarter, the Gigapark and the Wolverhampton Green Innovation Corridor. It will “draw on an unprecedented range of tools to support growth in the region’s Advanced Manufacturing sector – broadly defined to encompass electric vehicle and battery technology, green industries, health-tech and the critical underpinning digital platforms.”

“Electric vehicle and battery technology, green industries”? Considering the electric vehicle revolution is proving to be on the way out and green industries are a sham that more and more of the world is waking up to and so the narrative is most likely to fall apart soon, the West Midlands Investment Zone is not really for investments that the UK needs to grow its economy. In reality, it’s for a select few to enrich themselves while the Government drives the economy into the ground pursuing the nefarious green agenda. Depending on what “health-tech” and “critical underpinning digital platforms” mean in reality, these could be working towards an equally nefarious agenda that the public should and will reject.

Businesses located within Investment Zones benefit from various incentives, such as 100% relief from business rates on newly occupied business premises and certain existing businesses where they expand. Additionally, there is a 100% first-year tax allowance for companies’ qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery, enhanced structures and buildings annual tax allowance (totalling 100% over 10 years), exemption from Stamp Duty and Land Tax and zero-rate Employer National Insurance Contributions (“NICs”) on salaries of new employees working in the tax site for at least 60% of their time, on earnings up to £25,000 per year.

Tax incentives to encourage investment are not the problem. The first obvious problem is that the Investment Zones are targeted at a tightly defined list of industries; the zones are not open to all businesses. In other words, the Government is pinning all its “growth” plans on industries, that as we said earlier, are either already failing or likely to fail because the public is waking up to the fact that they are either a money-making scam and/or tools of public control.

Governance of Investment Zones

Another problem with Investment Zones is the governance of these areas. The Zones will be “enabled by a collaborative regional governance model, as well as a set of interventions and tools empowered by Government,” as the West Midlands Combined Authority put it.

Professor Steve Fothergill submitted written evidence to an inquiry held by Parliament’s Business and Trade Committee in September 2023 to examine what progress has been made so far on both investment zones and freeports.

Prof. Fothergill is an academic and economist who is the National Director of the Industrial Communities Alliance and has worked on many aspects of UK regional and local development.

“The submission focusses on Investment Zones but given the similarity of financial incentives there is likely to be significant read across to Freeports,” Prof. Fothergill wrote.

As Prof. Fothergill’s submission reveals, tax incentives are not the only incentive being given to businesses within the Investment Zones.

“The plan is,” he wrote, “that in England each Zone will have a support package worth £80m over five years. This is split between £35m for “a portfolio of interventions based on the opportunities of each cluster” (which in turn is split 60:40 between capital and revenue spending) and £45m for a package of tax incentives lasting five years.”

Who is paying for the “support package”? Taxpayers? If a business is not viable with all the tax breaks it is being offered, will it ever be viable? Why should the public finance “green” technologies, for example?

In his written evidence, Prof. Fothergill discussed the new Investment Zones in light of the experience gained from the Enterprise Zones of the 1980s and 1990s, and the likely impact and shortcomings of the Investment Zones. His overall impression was not a positive one.

“None of this is to suggest that Investment Zone status is not worth having, or that there will be no positive impact on growth and jobs. The impact is however unlikely to be transformative, locally or nationally,” he wrote. “The Investment Zone concept is not fundamentally flawed. However, for the moment, at least until the present initiative is revamped, expectations need to be kept in check.”

Prof. Fothergill did not discuss the implications of the governance of the Zones. He merely briefly described what authority the Zones will fall under:

Each Investment Zone in England is to be led by the Mayoral Combined Authority with the involvement of a wide range of local players. Local universities are expected to play a prominent role and local MPs are to be engaged in developing the plans. The central government’s approval will be required. The lead authority will be allowed to keep 100% of the increase in Business Rates on the Investment Zone sites for 25 years but will be required to demonstrate how business rate retention will be used to support local economic growth.

Written evidence: Professor Steve Fothergill (authored June 2022) published 17 October 2023, The performance of investment zones and freeports in England, Business and Trade Committee Inquiry, 8 September 2023

In the above, Prof. Fothergill was describing the public-private partnership model which is the favoured global governance model of the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) and the United Nations (“UN”). The implementation of the Global Public-Private Partnership (“GPPP”) with the UN at its head is well underway.

In the case of the West Midlands Investment Zone, it is the West Midlands Combined Authority (“WMCA”) that is taking the lead. Set up in 2016, the WMCA has 18 local councils as members which aim to “make the West Midlands a happy, healthy, place to live.” One of the ways WMCA plans to do this is to tackle climate change through its WM2041 pledge. Not all member councils are equal; 7 local councils have full voting rights and 11 councils have “reduced” voting rights in the WCMA.

Potential Human Rights Abuses Within Investment Zones

The European Powell Substack page said, “The glossy brochure version of [the Investment] Zones masks one key fact that Starmer announced a short while ago to 700 lobbyists during a webinar, that governance powers are to be handed over to corporations with the UK government taking a ‘secondary position’.”

We were unable to find the webinar European Powell was referring to. We were also unable to find another source confirming that Starmer specifically declared the Government would take a back seat when it comes to Investment Zones. But if this is what Starmer has stated, then there are obvious problems.

Above, we mentioned that one of the Investment Zones in England falls under the WCMA. Another proposed Investment Zone will fall under the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (“WYCA”). And another, South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (“SYMCA”).

Currently, WYCA comprises 6 member councils: Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds, Wakefield and York. The constituent members of SYMCA are Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield councils.

If you have read our article ‘How voter fraud in the UK has enabled the Asian rape gangs’ about two videos featuring Raja Miah, you will immediately understand the problem with these councils having the authority over Investment Zones while the national government takes a “secondary position.”

Rotherham, for example, has been the subject of several inquiries into “grooming gang” activities. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. In January, GB News identified 49 towns and cities across England and one in Scotland where white children have endured abuse for decades at the hands of gangs of mainly Muslim men. They include Bradford and Sheffield councils which are members of the Yorkshire combined authorities, as well as some of the towns and cities whose councils are members of the WCMA such as Birmingham, Coventry and Walsall.

As Miah explained, these rape gangs are part of a larger organised crime cartel that also harvests postal votes from Muslim communities to ensure certain candidates are “elected” to both local councils and Parliament. Effectively, these cartels have infiltrated and in some cases are to some degree controlling these local councils to serve their interests. Such councils cannot be trusted to ensure rights and freedoms according to the UK’s Christian values, principles, laws and customs are upheld in Investment Zones.

Although there is no proof, it is quite conceivable that the modern-day slavery problem in the UK is also part of the voting fraud/rape gang organised crime network that is operating in the UK. Modern slavery is a significant issue in the UK, with an estimated 122,000 people in modern slavery, according to slavery experts. Although the Government only recognises around 10,000 of these cases.

In 2018, Andrew Bridgen exposed the labour exploitation in the Boohoo fast fashion industry in the city of Leicester which had been going on for well over a decade. Leicester is one of the cities identified by GB News where Muslim rape gangs are also active.

In 2021, the UK government released a report stating that it had taken steps to combat modern slavery, such as the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015, which has been emulated in several countries. By that time, the government had also invested in the Police Modern Slavery response, bringing the total investment to £15 million since 2016. Additionally, the Home Office increased funding for the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service, which now covers two-thirds of local authorities in England and Wales. Will measures to combat modern-day slavery also apply to the Investment Zones? Or will the government simply trust the Mayoral Combined Authority to do the right thing?

As European Powell noted, “What’s good for companies in [Investment Zones] becomes a living hell for workers and residents entrapped in these free zones … with a deregulatory framework separate from the host country, companies now have the ability to make serious incursions into the public infrastructure without having to worry about public or parliamentary scrutiny because secondary legislation was written into the 25-year licenses.”

Again, European Powell does not provide a source for this information so we cannot verify whether it is correct. But whether his information is correct or not, the possibility he raises cannot be overlooked.

Secondary legislation is necessary to provide the specific details and rules for the operation of Investment Zones. Secondary legislation often takes the form of Statutory Instruments, which can be specific such as setting the date for when something comes into effect. Without knowing the specific Statutory Instrument European Powell is referring to, it is almost impossible to either confirm, deny or provide context. Perhaps the best way to understand European Powell’s remark is to look at the Government’s guidance.

In July 2023, the UK government published guidance on Investment Zones. It stated, “[The Investment Zone] programme is committed to supporting devolution – empowering local leaders to drive growth and levelling up in partnership with central government.” This does indeed imply the government taking a “secondary position” in the governance of the Zones as European Powell suggested.

The guidance also states, “In Great Britain, the public sector equality duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010 (“Act”) requires public authorities in exercising their functions to have due regard to the need to: eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act.” It sounds as if this particular law, at least, applies to Investment Zones.

But then, and here’s the problem, the guidance goes on to say that the Government will not ensure the PSED is enforced after the Investment Zone plans have been finalised:

“As part of PSED, the government will conduct a programme level equality impact assessment on Investment Zones after proposals have finalised and the types of interventions to be delivered for each place are known. Accountable bodies will be responsible for their own compliance with the PSED duties,” the guidance states.

May God help the employees in Investment Zones that come under the control of local councils where the organised crime network, using fraudulent postal votes, is selecting the councillors and mayors.

Anti-Monopoly Regulators Ordered to Focus on “Growth”

As is well-known, the world is being crushed under the monopolies of large global corporations. It is a case of too much money in too few hands and those few hands (the Globalists) are no longer satisfied with having more money than many nations – they now want to own and control every aspect of every person’s life and the entire natural world. And Starmer is assisting them to achieve their goal.

At the International Investment Summit held in London on 20 October 2024, Starmer said the Government was pledging to “rip out the bureaucracy that blocks investment” and ensure regulators prioritise economic growth in their decision-making. Part of the PM’s deregulation drive will see the competition watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”), ordered to prioritise growth, investment and innovation in its work.

“We will rip up the bureaucracy that blocks investment, we will march through the institutions and make sure that every regulator in this country, especially our economic and competition regulators, takes growth as seriously as this room does,” Starmer told a roomful of representatives from global corporations.

10 Downing Street: PM Keir Starmer’s speech at the International Investment Summit, 14 October 2024

He also said his government would take a “hardheaded approach to industrial policy” which is “a partnership, sharing the risk with the private sector.” In other words, if a foreign business invests in the UK and shows signs of failing, the Government will help pick up the tab, using UK taxpayers’ money of course.

“We’re not in the business of picking individual winners, but we are in the business of building on our strengths … to put it simply, we give the businesses of this country the best conditions to succeed,” he said.

We are left wondering which businesses he is referring to: small to medium size locally-owned businesses or foreign-owned global corporations. We are not left wondering for long. Firstly, he was speaking to a roomful of representatives from large corporations. Secondly, in 2023 Starmer said that if he had to choose between Westminster and the World Economic Forum he would choose Davos.

Let’s return to Starmer’s pledge to “march through the institutions” and ensure regulators take “growth” as seriously as large privately owned corporations.

Formed in 2013 through a merger of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission, the CMA is responsible for promoting competitive markets and tackling unfair behaviour and is recognised as a globally important anti-trust agency. Its responsibilities include:

Investigating mergers of businesses that have the potential to lead to a substantial lessening of competition.
Taking action against businesses and individuals that take part in cartels or anti-competitive behaviour.
Protecting people from unfair trading practices.
Investigating entire markets if CMA thinks there are competition or consumer problems.
Encourages the Government and other regulators to use competition effectively on behalf of consumers.
Conducts regulatory appeals in relation to issues like price controls.
Provides information and advice to people and businesses about rights and obligations under competition and consumer law.

Unchecked capitalism has allowed multinational corporations to become so large that they can dictate to national governments. WEF is a case in point, another is the relatively few large financial institutions dominating and thereby controlling the global financial system.

As the key role of CMA is to prevent monopolies and protect consumers, Why does Starmer want CMA to “rip out the bureaucracy” and instead focus on “growth”? Is it so these large corporations are even less inhibited by anti-monopoly laws? Confirmation of this is the case was hinted at by CMA, which would appear to be a willing accomplice.

Last week, CMA published a blog written by its chief executive Sarah Cardell. Her blog described CMA’s new approach to “both drive growth and investment and uphold consumer interests.” Some of these changes to “uphold consumer interests” involve a relaxation of anti-competitive behaviour:

Our objective is for as many of the deals as possible which raise competition concerns to be cleared with effective remedies, rather than be prohibited.

We also want to take a proportionate approach to looking at global deals, which we know is important to investor confidence. We will always uphold our duty to protect UK consumers and businesses. But we are now carefully exploring how far (under existing law) we might be able to more clearly distinguish between deals with a distinct and direct UK impact, versus those where it may be more appropriate to watch closely whether action by other authorities could resolve UK concerns.

New CMA proposals to drive growth, investment and business confidence, Competition and Markets Authority, 13 February 2025

Effectively, Starmer’s “growth” plan includes enabling monopolies to be more easily created in the UK, with taxpayers’ money being made available to share the risk of foreign businesses’ failure. Will these monopolies abide by and respect the UK’s customs and values or will they simply become another organised crime network that UK citizens are left to deal with on their own, without Parliament, law enforcement or the Judiciary’s help?

Starmer only named one regulator he was targeting. What other regulators is Starmer planning to target to deliver his growth for corporations plan?

This article (UK Investment Zones: Will the self-governing zones enable the abuse of rights?) was created and published by The Expose and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Rhoda Wilson

Featured image: freerangestock.com

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.