Something has been nagging at me.
I have been inherently lazy in my discussions about State Aid and Brexit.
The gist of my tweets - and those of many others - is "ha ha, you think this UK Government could pick a tech winner? Dream on!"
I have been inherently lazy in my discussions about State Aid and Brexit.
The gist of my tweets - and those of many others - is "ha ha, you think this UK Government could pick a tech winner? Dream on!"
Now that may not be wrong. But it is not enough. It is not adequate.
I'd like to unpack this a little, and I'd like my followers to help unpack it too.
I'd like to unpack this a little, and I'd like my followers to help unpack it too.
Let us assume for a moment that the UK wanting greater control on State Aid is not for malevolent purposes, and the idea that the UK could be a world leader in AI or biotech or other tech sectors is a noble aim, and that *government intervention* could help towards this end.
The leads to two logical further questions:
Are there cases in other countries where state backing of tech industries worked, and these could serve as a model for the UK?
If so, is there anything in EU State Aid rules that would stop the UK answering question
Are there cases in other countries where state backing of tech industries worked, and these could serve as a model for the UK?
If so, is there anything in EU State Aid rules that would stop the UK answering question
I don't think either the USA or China help us answer question - the UK does not have the USA's military-industrial complex that was at the root of a lot of what Silicon Valley did at the start. And the UK will not emulate China's surveillance-authoritarian-capitalist model.
So what else is there? Are there examples of medium sized countries that have - through state intervention - done something right in this regard? South Korea (but Samsung, Daewoo, LG...?), Taiwan, perhaps the Nordics? Canada?
And then to - the UK has traditionally been much more reluctant to use State Aid than plenty of other EU countries, where it is mostly used to help declining industries to restructure - and the EU's State Aid regime has been flexible enough to allow this.
Two semi-tangents:
@williamnhutton has a proposal that the UK Government could invest in ARM but I've not seen any more about that https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/09/this-tech-giant-up-for-sale-is-a-homegrown-miracle-it-must-be-saved-for-britain
The Times reports how the tech sector in the UK is in good health *anyway* https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tech-firms-blaze-trail-with-huge-jobs-drive-jbr507j07
@williamnhutton has a proposal that the UK Government could invest in ARM but I've not seen any more about that https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/09/this-tech-giant-up-for-sale-is-a-homegrown-miracle-it-must-be-saved-for-britain
The Times reports how the tech sector in the UK is in good health *anyway* https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tech-firms-blaze-trail-with-huge-jobs-drive-jbr507j07
Anyway, so those are the things I would like to unpack, and indeed those are the questions people like @peston ought to be unpacking too, rather than regurgitating the government's plans: https://www.itv.com/news/2020-09-07/the-reason-why-boris-johnson-is-jeopardising-an-eu-free-trade-deal
I'd value thoughts from @DavidHenigUK @SamuelMarcLowe @GeorgePeretzQC about issues raised in this thread - is there some "Would what they're trying to do even work?" piece somewhere that can explain this in a way that doesn't just assume Number 10 is lazy or malevolent?
/ends
/ends