Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

UK Seizes British Steel for Pennies: Analysts Slam "Robber Logic"

Blog

UK Seizes British Steel for Pennies: Analysts Slam "Robber Logic"
Blog

Blog

UK Seizes British Steel for Pennies: Analysts Slam "Robber Logic"

2026-07-22 09:39 Last Updated At:09:39

On July 16, the UK government announced the passage of legislation to "nationalize" British Steel, a subsidiary of China’s Jingye Group. The move stripped Jingye of control, management authority, and revenue rights over the company. On July 19, Jingye urged the UK to immediately stop "trampling on international investment rules" and to swiftly, fully, and effectively compensate the company for all investment losses.

Labour Government Nationalizes Jingye's British Steel.

Labour Government Nationalizes Jingye's British Steel.

Shattered Promises

According to Jingye Group’s official WeChat account, Jingye Steel Ltd. said on July 19 that it legally acquired British Steel in 2020 when the company was on the verge of bankruptcy, and turned it profitable within a year. Over the past five years, Jingye said it has continuously poured in massive capital, created tens of thousands of local jobs, and made a major contribution to British Steel and the UK steel industry.

Since Jingye acquired British Steel, the UK government has shifted from "promising co-investment" to "refusing to honor commitments," and from "forced takeover" to "full nationalization." Jingye’s statement called this a case of shattered promises, trampled rules, and outright betrayal.

By ignoring Jingye’s targeted investment and major contribution while offering compensation that is "almost zero," the UK has damaged the confidence of global investors.

The statement demanded that the UK immediately stop using domestic law to trample on international investment rules. It also called on London to provide timely, full, and effective compensation for all of Jingye’s investment losses. Jingye said it has already initiated consultation procedures under the relevant bilateral investment treaty and reserves all legal rights, including international arbitration.

The statement also said that, in defense of British taxpayers’ interests, Jingye will legally pursue the liability of relevant government officials and British Steel management. That claim targets what Jingye described as a rushed takeover carried out without preparation or a business plan, one that inflicted major losses on both taxpayers and the company’s operations.

Starmer Meets British Steel Workers Last April.

Starmer Meets British Steel Workers Last April.

The Cost of Survival

According to the BBC, the UK government said bringing this loss-making company into state ownership would protect jobs and safeguard a "vital national capability." In March this year, a report by the National Audit Office said the Scunthorpe steelworks was costing the UK government about £1.3 million a day.

By late January 2026, the government had already spent £377 million to keep British Steel operating. That figure was expected to exceed £600 million by late June, and spending could top £1.5 billion by 2028.

Jiupai Finance reported that Jingye completed the acquisition of British Steel in March 2020 for roughly £50 million to £70 million, when the company was close to bankruptcy. After the deal, Jingye injected substantial funds to keep the business running.

According to Jingye’s public disclosures, the group has continued to invest over the past five years in equipment upgrades, production and operations, employee pay, and green transition projects.

Facing persistent losses and environmental pressure, Jingye proposed a transition plan. The plan called for shutting the aging blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, building electric arc furnaces, and securing major subsidy support from the UK government. But that would have closed the two blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, the core assets Jingye took over.

The UK refused, because these are the country’s last two blast furnaces capable of producing primary steel directly from iron ore. Once closed, the UK would lose its full blast furnace to basic oxygen furnace steelmaking system and become the only G7 nation without primary steel production capacity.

For a country that once relied on steel to complete its Industrial Revolution and has long treated steel as a strategic industry, that is politically close to unthinkable.

In April 2025, the UK’s Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act completed the legislative process and received Royal Assent in a single day. Under that law, the UK government gained direct powers to intervene in British Steel’s production and operations. In practical terms, it took over the company’s business decisions.

In May 2026, the UK government formally introduced the Steel Industry (Nationalization) Act to bring British Steel into state ownership by legislation. On July 16, the government announced that the relevant legislation had passed, nationalizing British Steel under Jingye Group.

Beijing Pushes Back

China’s Ministry of Commerce previously said Beijing is firmly opposed to the UK government’s decision and strongly dissatisfied with it. The ministry urged the UK to abide by relevant international rules, fulfill its obligations under the China-UK Bilateral Investment Treaty, treat Chinese enterprises in the UK fairly and justly, and fully protect their legitimate rights and interests. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson also stressed on Saturday, the 18th, that investors’ lawful rights and interests must be fully protected in accordance with the law. The spokesperson urged the UK to genuinely respect market principles and the spirit of contracts, and to find a mutually acceptable solution, including on compensation.

Analysts said the UK government has not acknowledged Jingye Group’s right to compensation. Instead, London argues that both the existence of compensation and the amount of compensation must be determined only after an independent assessment. The dispute has stirred wider concern about the security of cross-border investment and the sanctity of market contracts, while raising questions about the UK’s unilateral administrative intervention and its departure from market-oriented principles.

According to CCTV, Zhou Mi, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation under the Ministry of Commerce, said investors place a high value on a stable local environment when making investment decisions. Many countries, including the UK, promise stable treatment when attracting foreign investment, on the basis of mutual benefit and win-win cooperation. Zhou said Chinese enterprises have fulfilled their commitments, created local jobs, and kept British Steel’s local production and normal operations running.

Zhou Mi: Nationalization Demands Fair Compensation.

Zhou Mi: Nationalization Demands Fair Compensation.

Zhou said he believes Chinese steel companies bring more effective experience in the steel sector. The UK government could not sustain British Steel’s development back then, and now it is ignoring the business sector’s advice. In his view, the UK’s claimed strategic logic simply does not stand up.

Zhou said nationalization requires proper consideration. Even within the framework of a bilateral investment treaty, when the UK government proceeds with nationalization, it must pay the corresponding cost. If the UK government takes a presumptuous approach to nationalization, it must weigh the consequences. Those consequences touch the company’s reasonable future development, its normal operations, the actual interests of employees, and the UK government’s reputation and future prospects as an international investment destination.

'Robber Logic' Under Fire

Jiang Haofeng, a commentator for Xinmin Evening News, argued that the nationalization of British Steel amounts to "robber" logic. He said the UK Labour Party brought British Steel into state ownership in the name of national security and protecting workers’ rights, even though Jingye did not carry out large-scale layoffs after the acquisition.

In Jiang’s view, after taking power, Labour wanted to secure votes tied to the steel unions and then used a newly enacted law to seize a private Chinese enterprise. He questioned whether that is fundamentally illegal. Jingye had broken no laws beforehand, and the acquisition was a fair transaction approved by the UK government. So if Britain now buys it back at an extremely low price, how is that different from robbery?

Jiang also questioned how the UK, as a so-called birthplace of fair trade, could attract global investment in the future. He further asked whether there is any link between newly appointed UK Prime Minister Bei Ande taking office and the nationalization of British Steel.




Deep Throat

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

The future belongs to artificial general intelligence (AGI). China and the United States are pursuing different strategies in the contest for global leadership.

But one US national security think tank wants to take the rivalry to an extreme. The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has gone so far as to suggest that Washington consider extreme measures to stop China from achieving AGI first.

CNAS released “Superpowers and AGI” report late last month.

CNAS released “Superpowers and AGI” report late last month.

Jacob Stokes, one of the report's authors and a former White House official, called on the US to prepare itself. He listed possible extreme measures, from diplomacy and espionage to cyberattacks and coercive steps. Among them: military strikes on Chinese data centers.

Stokes, one of the authors of the report urged extreme steps, even strikes on Chinese data centers.

Stokes, one of the authors of the report urged extreme steps, even strikes on Chinese data centers.

CNAS is headquartered in Washington and was founded in 2007. It has long advised the US government on defense, Indo-Pacific and China strategy. Its lean is hawkish.

Late last month, CNAS released a report titled “Superpowers and AGI”. The document reeks of gunpowder. It argues that the race for AGI, and the technology's potential emergence, could profoundly affect US-China competition. It could also heighten the risk of military conflict or catastrophe on multiple fronts.

The Containment Checklist

To that end, the report urges US policymakers to act on several fronts. First, ensure that American resources and technology do not aid China's AI development. Second, establish AI-focused diplomatic channels with allies and with China, so that the potential emergence of AGI is placed on the agenda. Third, develop a technically sophisticated method to track the inputs into AGI and the key performance thresholds of frontier AI systems.

The list goes on. Washington should conduct scenario exercises testing when and how the US should intervene to halt China's AGI development. It should prepare to reverse-engineer or steal the technology should China obtain AGI first. And it should limit and contain the reach of authoritarian digital infrastructure.

The most extreme proposal of all is military strikes. The South China Morning Post reported on 4 September that Stokes, deputy director of CNAS's Indo-Pacific Security Program, addressed an online event on Thursday.

His message was blunt. The US Department of Defense, the National Security Agency and other agencies should begin assessing what intelligence would be needed to justify such operations. That would pave the way for the "hard action" to follow.

The Cold War Playbook

Stokes served as a national security staffer under former US president Barack Obama. In the report he unabashedly lays out a menu of what he calls "diplomatic, espionage, cyber and kinetic measures." Among them are military strikes on the data centers that train and run China's AGI systems. He even touts preventive strikes before China develops AGI at all.

Stokes goes so far as to compare the undertaking to the way "in a past era, policymakers would learn about nuclear weapons." His declared method is to "work backwards from the science to the policy implications."

Citing assessments by research outfit Epoch AI, the report notes that the US currently leads China in advanced AI models by only "months." But it warns that China could pull off an "unexpected technological breakthrough" in fields such as robotics and "embodied AI."

Citing research institute Epoch AI data, the report sees China pulling off surprise breakthroughs.

Citing research institute Epoch AI data, the report sees China pulling off surprise breakthroughs.

Notably, Stokes also concedes a gap on the American side. The US government and its intelligence agencies have "not been organised for espionage to gather technological secrets for decades."

"The Height of Recklessness"

Stokes' extreme remarks have drawn questioning within the United States itself. William Hartung, a senior arms and defense budget expert at the Washington-based non-profit Project On Government Oversight (POGO), publicly slammed the report as "the height of recklessness."

Hartung warned that any strike on Chinese data centers would "risk starting a shooting war between two nuclear-armed powers". Such a war could bring tragic consequences for all concerned.

China has consistently maintained that AI should be people-centered and that intelligence should serve the good. Military applications must remain under human control. Beijing opposes turning technological issues into bloc confrontation or weaponry.

Make no mistake: technological competition is no casus belli. When individual American politicians and think-tank figures reach for threats of "military strikes" and "espionage" at every turn, they gravely violate the basic norms of international relations. They also expose a dangerous bid to politicize and militarize technology.

Recommended Articles