Britain should be more worried about where successful businesses choose to build their next chapter. A country can keep its financial institutions, recognisable brands and talented founders while losing the investment and decision-making that would have supported its future growth.
That is my concern about the UK. We still have considerable expertise in banking, payments, technology and regulated gaming. But expertise does not guarantee that the next company, funding round or senior team will choose to stay.
My view is that Britain is making that choice harder than it needs to be. The damage can arrive quietly: a listing moves, a founder relocates, an overseas office becomes the centre of the business, or a new project is launched somewhere else. Each decision may make commercial sense on its own. Together, they should prompt a serious examination of the conditions Britain offers.
The decisions are already visible
The debate about London’s capital markets has concrete examples. Flutter’s June 2026 shareholder materials set out plans to cancel its secondary London listing, with New York remaining its trading venue. The company cited London trading activity and the additional costs and administrative obligations of retaining that listing. Its materials also made clear that its incorporation and tax domicile would remain in Ireland. [1]
Ferguson announced its plans in June 2026 and confirms that it completed the cancellation of its secondary London listing on 20 July, retaining its primary New York listing. [2]
These are decisions about stock-market listings. They do not establish that every UK office closed or that every employee moved abroad. Nor do they prove that British taxation caused either decision. They do show that the case for maintaining a London listing has to compete with the commercial advantages available elsewhere.
For Britain, the question is how to make that case stronger. Once a company decides its investors are better served in another market, national pride is unlikely to reverse the calculation.
Tax changes the commercial calculation
Gaming provides a direct example of policy changing business economics. Remote Gaming Duty increased from 21% to 40% from 1 April 2026. It applies to the relevant remote-gaming profits defined by the tax rules; it is not a 40% charge on every customer deposit. [3]
A higher duty does not automatically make a market unviable. It does change the funds available for technology, customer support, product development, compliance and growth. Boards will examine those costs alongside the commercial opportunity and obligations to protect customers.
Moving an operator’s headquarters overseas does not, by itself, remove UK-facing remote-gaming tax obligations. The more useful question is where that operator chooses to invest its next pound, develop its next product and hire its next team.
Tax can support essential public services. Regulation can protect consumers and establish trust. My criticism is that these policies need to be assessed alongside their cumulative effect on the investment Britain is trying to attract.
People make their own calculations too
The same competition applies to internationally mobile founders and investors. The UK’s remittance basis was replaced on 6 April 2025 by a residence-based foreign income and gains regime. Qualifying new arrivals can claim relief for their first four years of UK tax residence, subject to the eligibility rules. [4]
People can reasonably disagree about the fairness of that change. For someone deciding where to establish a home or build a business, however, the rules become part of a wider assessment of cost, opportunity and certainty.
I would not attach an unsupported number to a supposed flight of entrepreneurs. A departure estimate also tells us little about why a particular person left. What matters for policy is whether Britain is an attractive place for productive people to commit their next ten years.
That decision includes family life, access to talent, financing, housing, public services and confidence in future policy. Reducing it to a single tax rate misses much of the commercial reality.
Other markets are competing for the next decision
A founder considering London may also consider New York, Dubai, Abu Dhabi or Singapore. Those locations offer different advantages and impose different requirements. None should be treated as a place where regulation, operating costs or commercial risk disappear.
The lesson for Britain is that its historic position must be maintained through current decisions. A strong legal system, experienced advisers, established banks and deep professional networks remain valuable. They work best when businesses can also see a credible route to financing and growth.
For boards, choosing a market means examining actual customer access, banking relationships, payment infrastructure, regulatory permissions and the ability to recruit and retain people. A favourable headline tax rate cannot substitute for an operating business. Equally, a prestigious address cannot compensate indefinitely for a weak commercial proposition.
What I would change
I would start with greater policy predictability. Businesses need enough confidence to make investments that take years to pay back. Changes should have clear objectives, realistic implementation periods and an honest assessment of their combined effect.
I would also focus on the practical conditions for growth: access to capital, workable banking and payment relationships, regulatory processes that support well-run businesses, and the infrastructure needed to build and hire.
Finally, I would judge success by investment retained and attracted, businesses scaling, skilled employment and enduring commercial activity. Those outcomes matter more than reassuring ourselves that Britain still has famous institutions.
Britain can continue to produce exceptional companies and people. My concern is whether it is giving them enough reason to build their future here. We should take those decisions seriously before more of the value they create is established somewhere else.
If you are a founder, investor or board member, what would most improve your confidence in committing your next stage of growth to the UK?
Sources
- Flutter shareholder FAQ on its London delisting
- Ferguson shareholder information on its London delisting
- HMRC Remote Gaming Duty guidance
- HMRC foreign income and gains guidance
Sources checked on 17 October 2026. The commercial conclusions are the author’s analysis. Company listing decisions do not establish a particular tax motive or withdrawal of all UK operations.
Bryan Blake
Independent payments and commercial adviser
Subscribe to the LinkedIn newsletter ↗