Deconstructing the UK-US Tech Prosperity 'Deal'

Something of value

Actual deals on the other hand, are “agreements between two or more people to exchange valuables. In simple terms, it is an understanding whereby each party involved is expected to gain something of value from the other”.

Other elements that are crucial to a deal involve “good documentation clearly outlining the agreement's terms, including both parties’ rights and obligations. This includes payment information, deadlines, delivery expectations, and specifics around items included or excluded in the agreement”.

Take a look at the payment information, deadlines, delivery expectations and specifics in the wording of the much lauded and hyped US-UK tech “deal”:

Payment information: “Nothing in this MOU commits the participants to the expenditure of funds.”

Delivery timeline: “The participants intend to establish and convene a ministerial-level working group within six months of the date this MOU becomes operative. Furthermore, within 12 months of the date this MOU becomes operative, and every year thereafter, the participants intend to convene formal discussions to assess progress under this MOU.”

So, no money on the table and not exactly a speedy timeline given that most tech companies can ship a product in less time than it takes to “establish and convene a ministerial-level working group”.

Objectively, this “deal” is not a deal - and certainly not for the UK. It is a vague word salad designed by committee to justify the pomp and circumstance rolled out for the orange one to appease his broligarchy mates.

What message is being sent by all this vapourware to the UK SME and technology sector?

Prosperity for whom?

For a boots on the ground view, I asked an experienced tech SME colleague, versed in trying to sell into government and the public sector. Their big question is, “Prosperity for whom?”

They added: “It’s hard to escape the feeling that this binds and embeds us even more closely to big US tech companies without any firm guarantees for UK businesses. There is a risk that our tech sector and SMEs effectively become talent pipelines for US-backed businesses. Putting aside issues over digital sovereignty - which many others have already pointed out - the US tech giants already distort the UK market. Whether that’s by inflating salaries for engineering talent or acquiring potential future competitors and thus stifling innovation, this MOU risks making things harder than they already are for UK SMEs.”

These sentiments are echoed by former government digital chief Mike Bracken, writing in the FT: “The Treasury’s approach to tech contracts has traditionally been limited to a narrow selection of big deals with chosen suppliers. This has throttled opportunities to support domestic startup growth. Despite a laudable commitment to a 10-year infrastructure investment and the development of AI zones, the UK may end up building the foundations for other countries’ successful technologies.”

As part of the “deal” the US and the UK have agreed to focus on developing “the fastest growing technologies like AI, quantum and nuclear”. It goes on to suggest, “By combining the strength of the participants’ national labs, the genius of their scientists, and the agility of their leading companies, the participants intend to deliver unmatched innovation and keep their countries safe, prosperous, and leading the pack.”

But for the UK to compete as an equal partner in this scenario it needs, well, scientists. And what’s alarming is the huge dissonance between reality and rhetoric.

How for example is the UK going to do this when, according to the Guardian in a survey of department heads by the Institute of Physics (IoP), “26% said they faced potential closure of their department within the next two years, while 60% said they expected courses to be reduced”.

Since physics underpins so much of scientific and technology development, how does this sit with the reality? According to Professor Daniel Thomas, chair of the IoP’s heads of physics forum and head of the University of Portsmouth’s school of physics and mathematics, far from being at the cutting edge of development, we are losing the necessary skills to be the world leader the MOU claims is possible: “If we lose those skills, if we don’t educate the next generation in those skills, then of course we are definitely jeopardising our world leadership as a country – that’s a great concern.”

Datacentre jobs

What is meant by “prosperity”? The MOU talks about “high-skill jobs and high-paying jobs,” suggesting it will help develop the workforce of the future by “ensuring US and UK citizens benefit from the opportunities of AI across the supply chain”. I interpret that to mean a promise of jobs through datacentres - but the evidence here does not stack up, either.

In Boydton, Virginia in the US, recently profiled in the New York Times, Microsoft built a large datacentre housing thousands of computer servers. “People thought when Microsoft came in it would create jobs, but that’s just not the case,” said E.W. Gregory, the head of the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union. Instead, they brought in outside technicians to do most of the work, he added. About 25 local residents got jobs, primarily as administrative assistants or janitorial staff, Gregory said. I’m not seeing the route to prosperity there for UK citizens.

If you are interested in the real stories of datacentres - including their failure to deliver real jobs and their horrendous environmental impact - check out the excellent report “Where cloud meets cement,” which debunks many of the myths touted about datacentres by Big Tech and increasingly governments.

For a TLDR version here is a quote from The Future: “While datacentres do generate thousands of jobs during construction, the number of permanent roles is far lower than many political statements suggest. For example, when Amazon announced its $10bn datacentre expansion in Ohio, state officials touted the creation of ‘thousands’ of jobs. Yet, official documents revealed only 1,058 new positions - none of which were required to be full-time or salaried.”

What is the UK-US Tech Prosperity Deal, really? A no-deal deal which favours the broligarchy and Big Tech over our indigenous talent, with instantly debunkable rhetoric about job creation and a chilling shot across the bows for our SME talent.

After all, what venture capitalists will want to invest in our homegrown startups when the world and its mother knows who really has access to future contracts?

If you are in any doubt as to who really has that access then look no further than the guests at Donald Trump’s recent state dinner at Windsor Castle. How curious it is that the UK government is prepared to sell out its cultural industries to Big Tech and now seems to be doing the same to its tech SME sector. There is only so much family silver in those Windsor vaults - I fear it may be, like our planet, an all-too finite resource.