Any legal payment obligation that applies specifically to non-Muslims counts, can be local.
Any country that has ever been a member of the EU (so the UK as well), or is admitted in the future, counts, even it later leaves or the EU is dissolved.
See also:
Suppose that a country required a tax to be paid to support impoverished Muslims, payable by Muslims and non-Muslims alike in equal amounts. Also suppose that the Muslim community in that country referred to it as "zakat" when they paid it and as "jizya" when non-Muslims paid it, though this terminology was not in official use.
Would this count as a YES?
Sounds like a trick question. I cannot tell whether it tries to describe Sweden, some country in the Middle East, or a genuine hypothetical case.
To answer the question, there must be a legal distinction in the construction of the tax depending on whether one is a Muslim or dhimmi. If the tax money is designated for spending on helping Muslims specifically (and not solely due to the fact that Muslim community happens to be a drag on the social welfare system on average), it would count given reliable evidence that it is considered jizya by the Muslims.
When it happens, I think we are finally and irrevocably fucked, so it will not matter that this is not literally consistent with how the market description is phrased.