Sir Jim Ratcliffe's Ineos has opted to skip its dividend payment as the company's losses widened to $593 million.

Jim Ratcliffe’s €4bn gamble on cash-strapped Ineos  The Times

Jim Ratcliffe’s €4bn gamble on cash-strapped Ineos  The Times

Jim Ratcliffe's Ineos is reportedly exploring asset sales as the chemical sector faces difficulties, prompting the group to seek ways to raise cash, cut costs, and reduce leverage.

Anger over immigration is once again the prevailing force in British politics

Under proposed changes, UK migrant families claiming in-work benefits could see their wait for settled status double to 20 years if they use public funds.

The deregulation agenda being pushed by Germany’s chancellor and Italy’s prime minister is economically and ethically flawed When the European Union launched its green deal in 2019, putting into law the goal of climate neutrality by the middle of the century, it showed strategic foresight as well as global leadership. Russia’s war in Ukraine has starkly underlined the extent to which the continent’s energy security – and its future prosperity – is dependent on the transition away from fossil fuels. Lately, however, EU leaders’ environmental approach appears to be echoing the youthful St Augustine’s plea on chastity: make us greener, but not yet. The recent European Industry Summit in Antwerp made unusually big headlines thanks to Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s xenophobic outburst over immigration. But it was also notable for fierce attacks on one of the most important pillars of EU environmental policy. The bloc’s emissions trading system (ETS) – which makes polluters pay for the C02 they emit – has achieved dramatic results in driving down overall emissions since 2005 and encouraging green innovation. Worryingly, the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, appeared to sympathise with demands from Sir Jim and other CEOs for a radical relaxation of the rules. Continue reading...

In Defense Of Sir Jim Ratcliffe Authored by Charles Johnson via TheCritic.co.uk, Far more energy has gone into condemning his phrasing than confronting the questions he raised... Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s statement that Britain has been “colonised by immigrants” has sparked a fierce reaction. From Starmer to Bluesky, to the Athletic and all the football social media pundits in between, the co-owner of  Manchester United has been bombarded with the same attack lines repeatedly. He has been called a tax dodging, racist immigrant hypocrite. Such an uproar has flared up in such a short space of time because Ratcliffe is radically different from those who have issued similar statements before. Ratcliffe is not a political figure: you do not see billionaires nor football club owners voicing discontent like this. The pushback has been fierce because Ratcliffe has no political incentive to say any of this. He isn’t running for office, seeking favour, or chasing votes — which makes his intervention harder to dismiss. Part of the backlash, too, reflects an unease that his diagnosis may be accurate. The remarks came from an initial conversation regarding the economic challenges Britain faces in general, not solely on immigration. The snippet that has been so widely shared is merely part of a wider statement of the economic problems Britain faces; Ratcliffe refers to the issues of “immigration” and “nine million people” on benefits simultaneously. Manchester United part-owner has told @EdConwaySky the UK has been "colonised" by immigrants, who are draining resources from the state, as he warns of the country facing profound political, social and economic challenges. 🔗 https://t.co/bie6uFZ1Tp pic.twitter.com/qFpiO0HkfO February 11, 2026 Colonised is a strong opening salvo for a figure such as Ratcliffe, who is not known for any previous anti-migration stance. This generated responses of tone policing from his critics – cries that his choice of words were “disgraceful and deeply divisive” and that “this language and leadership has no place in English football” from Kick It Out, a notable “Anti Racism” football pressure group. There was no attempt to argue or debate: this was no more than tone policing, of “mate mate mate, you can’t say that mate”. It did not engage with the substantive point. It was not an argument. The Prime Minister has pushed for Ratcliffe to apologise. Less than a year ago, Starmer was referring to Britain as an ”Island of Strangers”; he has little argument here. Sir Ed Davey has stated that Ratcliffe is “totally wrong” and is “out of step with British Values”. Once again this is weak tone policing, not an argument. Regardless, which British values are being violated in particular? What are British values precisely meant to mean here? The fact is that Ratcliffe’s vocabulary choice is nowhere near as divisive as the impacts of mass migration in the last quarter century. Mass migration is the most important issue in British political debate. It has bought sectarianism, Bengali and Palestinian politics swinging both local council and Parliamentary elections, a deepening of housing crisis, the rape and murder of British women from taxpayer funded hotels and programs which bloat the welfare state even further. It is undeniable mass migration has defined British politics of the 2010s onwards. It has been much more harmful and divisive than any comment made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe. His words are nothing compared to the actions of Deng Chol Majek, or Hedash Kebatu, to name a couple of examples. Critics have also cried that Ratcliffe is “an immigrant himself, dodging tax in Monaco”. The difference between Ratcliffe and migration into Britain is so different they are almost incomparable. In the 2017/18 tax year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a bill of £110.5 million. With such an extraordinarily high bill, it is no wonder that he has since moved to Monaco. Meanwhile, the average salary of of a migrant entering Britain in 2023 (which has fallen by £10,000 since 2021) was £32,946, according to a report by the Centre for Migration Control. From this we can estimate a migrant would pay about £5,000 in income tax. That means it would take over 22,000 (statistically average) migrants to foot the tax bill that Ratcliffe paid in one year alone. Ratcliffe has been an exceptional cash cow to the British state. He has been taxed incredible amounts and contributed more to this country than almost anyone currently living; to call him hypocritical since he dared to criticise migration and its impact on the welfare state is simply not fair. Census data from the ONS in 2021 shows that migrants from four nations – Somalia, Nigeria, Jamaica and Bangladesh – head over 104,000 social homes in London alone. With such incredible numbers of subsidised housing going to foreign born nationals, it is absolutely correct to state that mass migration is costing the British economy a fortune. The same census states that over 70% of Somali born households are in social housing in England and Wales, whilst also being of lowest contributors to income tax in the nation – paying well under the £5,000 stated per head previously. The increase and sheer scale of benefit reliance for many immigrants in Britain is not sustainable, and it is a problem that is right to be addressed. Perhaps the most nonsensical argument presented by some is that as co-owner of Manchester United he employs a significant number of immigrant players. Bruno Fernandes is not living in social housing in Wythenshawe. Benjamin Sesko is not in a single bed council flat in Hulme. When he arrived in Manchester last year, the first thing Senne Lammens did was not register for Universal Credit. Not a single foreign player is a drain on the state. They are, as elite athletes in the most lucrative league in the world, very clearly exceptions to the norm of British migration. The difference between Bruno Fernandes, who earns a reported £300,000 a week, and the over 40% of Bangladeshi immigrants who are economically inactive should really not need spelling out. We are referring to just 17 foreign senior team players who all earn more in a week than the average migrant – or Brit – will earn in a year. It is ludicrous  to even attempt to compare the two. Regardless, employing or working with immigrants does not mean you waive your right to criticise the state of affairs in Britain. As an Englishman, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has a given and inalienable right to comment on the affairs of his country. Ratcliffe’s critics have entirely focused on his choice of the word “colonised”, and how they consider it inflammatory. This choice of phrase was not entirely accurate or intentional by Ratcliffe – proved by the fact he issued an apology over his “choice of language”, rather than the substance and argument behind his critique of the broader economic challenge of Britain. The bottom line is, Ratcliffe was right to raise a perfectly reasonable concern. He is directionally correct, and close enough to the truth that the obsessive focus around his phrasing is both absurd and clearly no more than a tactic to dodge the substance of his argument entirely. His critics have been intentionally evasive around the underlying subject: it is a harsh, necessary truth they have no reply too. They avoid the debate because, despite his wording being wrong, Ratcliffe is right. Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 06:30

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe has publicly backed the Conservative Party's proposals to eliminate taxes related to net zero emissions.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe's company, Ineos, has opted to skip its dividend payment as its losses have widened to $593 million.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe's Ineos group is initiating legal proceedings to secure the return of a boat previously used by Sir Ben Ainslie's team in the last America's Cup.

Jim Ratcliffe’s €4bn gamble on cash-strapped Ineos  The Times

Jim Ratcliffe’s €4bn gamble on cash-strapped Ineos  The Times

An opinion piece from the New Statesman argues that Britain has been 'colonised by billionaires, not migrants,' challenging Jim Ratcliffe's perspective.

Man Utd owner Jim Ratcliffe has avoided sanctions from the FA after his controversial claim that the UK was 'colonised' by immigrants, though he was reminded of his responsibilities.

The Sunday Times publishes a new cartoon by Morten Morland on February 15, 2026.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe's chemical company Ineos has decided to skip its dividend payment as the firm's losses widened to $593 million.

Jim Ratcliffe's chemical company, Ineos, has been granted a debt break as a direct consequence of supply chain disruptions caused by the ongoing Iran war.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe's Ineos group has initiated legal proceedings to retrieve a boat previously used by Sir Ben Ainslie's team in the last America's Cup.

Jim Ratcliffe’s €4bn gamble on cash-strapped Ineos  The Times

The chemicals empire owned by billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, Ineos, is reportedly in discussions to sell assets from its vinyls business, Inovyn, to address increasing debt and cut costs.

The industrialist and Manchester United co-owner has apologised over comments he made about immigration.

Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe's comments on immigration have drawn a response from Michael Carrick, who expressed pride in the club's diversity.

Readers have responded to billionaire Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe’s remark that 'the UK is being colonised by immigrants,' stating that his words have sullied the club's reputation.

Billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, co-owner of Manchester United, has drawn criticism for stating that the UK has been 'colonised by immigrants' in an interview.