Steven Farmer’s recent article in The Times presents a compelling critique of the UK’s hesitancy to introduce comprehensive AI regulation. Particularly in contrast to the EU’s decisive implementation of the AI Act. The argument that a more relaxed regulatory framework might attract AI firms to Britain is, at best, optimistic and, at worst, misguided.
Farmer rightly points to the “Brussels effect” – the EU’s ability to set de facto global standards, as witnessed with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Businesses seeking regulatory certainty often gravitate towards larger markets with clear rules. The EU, with its vast economic influence, is again positioning itself as the standard-setter for AI governance. The UK’s reluctance to follow suit risks isolating it from this global alignment, making it less attractive rather than more so.
The belief that lighter regulation fosters AI innovation in Britain misunderstands the priorities of key developers, investors, and users. While flexibility is desirable, businesses also crave predictability. A regulatory vacuum, or a fragmented system where different industry regulators interpret AI risks inconsistently, creates uncertainty that can stifle investment.
Moreover, regulatory divergence from the EU could pose practical challenges. AI developers operating across borders will likely prioritise compliance with the more stringent EU framework to maintain access to its market. Rendering any UK-specific, lighter-touch regulation largely redundant. If Britain does not align its rules with those of the EU, AI firms may simply opt to establish themselves within the bloc to avoid the complexities of dual compliance.
The UK’s approach also contrasts sharply with the trajectory of AI regulation worldwide. As Farmer highlights, Taiwan has already introduced a comprehensive legislative framework. Other jurisdictions, including the US, are actively shaping their own AI policies. If Britain stays in regulatory limbo, it risks losing economic influence and AI leadership to more decisive nations.
While overregulation fears are valid, the solution is balance—not a vague, piecemeal approach. Proportionate, principle-based regulation – aligned with international best practices – would provide the certainty businesses need without imposing unnecessary burdens. The UK must recognise that it cannot dictate global AI norms in isolation. It must engage with and adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape or risk being left behind.
In short, a ‘lighter touch’ is not the silver bullet some policymakers hope for. Instead of making Britain an AI leader, it could leave the country lagging in a tightly regulated global market. The time for clarity and decisive action is now.