BRITISH companies are particularly vulnerable to unwanted “casino-style” hostile takeover bids compared to those in other EU countries such as the Netherlands and France, Unite said yesterday.

The union accused the government of being “toothless” as a new report showed that British laws on hostile takeovers are among Europe’s weakest.

The increase in cash given to shareholders of UK-listed firms was almost double the increase of investment made by UK firms over the last seven years, according to a report commissioned by Unite.

As a result, the report claims, the short-term interests of shareholders are placed at a higher value than employees.

This has the potential to damage local communities and British industry as a whole, it adds.

The report comes in the wake of Unilever’s decision to move its headquarters to the Netherlands, and amid calls for the government to block asset-stripper Melrose’s £8.1 billion hostile bid for engineering giant GKN.

Unite has demanded a strengthening of takeover laws in order to put job security and economic stability before the whims of the market.

Lashing out against the short-termism of the City of London, Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said that “our takeover law is simply inadequate when it comes to protecting British companies.

“What happens in this country would not be allowed to happen in France, Holland or Germany, but our government refuses to give our jobs and businesses the same protection,” he continued.

“Business will vote with its feet because Theresa May’s government sits on its hands. City speculators looking to turn a quick buck know that the UK is open to their ‘casino-style’ capitalism.

“This is wrong. Finance should be the servant of the economy, not the other way around.”

The report makes recommendations to strengthen the voice of workers and community interests, including making firms opt out of rewarding long-term investors with additional voting rights as a way of reducing potential hostile takeovers and short-term investment.

Mr McCluskey urged that adoption of these measures would be necessary to halt the “bewildering,” “frustrating” and “irresponsible” destabilisation of British industry.