10 ms·
President Trump Signs Technology Prosperity Deal with United Kingdom
- amacbride 1y agoJust the headline itself makes me think of the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” and we all know how that turned out.
- kkkqkqkqkqlqlql 1y agoThought the exact same. Not even knowing the history of Japan, just from like one frame in the Bill Wurtz video where that name shows up.
- snickerbockers 1y agoOkay but we also know how it started, which was not as a bilateral trade agreement. I don't think imperial japan has eternally tarnished the concept of 'prosperity' in the same way that hitler forever tarnished that style of mustache.
- area51org 1y agoAnyone care to boil this down?
- Applejinx 1y ago[flagged]
- jfengel 1y agoIt's a bunch of individual investments by large tech firms, going both ways. It wouldn't ordinarily require a government intervention, but both governments are in need of a win right now. (Brexit has limited the UK's access to Europe, and the US needs to show that the tariffs give it leverage.) These are all fine, and some things might even actually happen. (Deals like these tend to diminish as you get closer to money actually changing hands.) International cooperation is good. It's just a little weird that it had to happen between two countries who have been explicitly rejecting international cooperation.
- rcpt 1y agoThese press releases aren't great sources of news. Anyone got a different link?
- 1659447091 1y ago"US firms pledge £150bn investment in UK as tech deal signed" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2nllgl3q7o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2nllgl3q7o Had posted this a few days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45285763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45285763 It's all related afaict
- bluecalm 1y agoIt's not stated in the article but what US gets in return? I guess some promises of political/tax policy stability. I am curious if there is anything official though.
- KaiserPro 1y agoI think the idea is that we(the UK) will buy small nuclear reactors from the US, and we'll develop ceramic uranium fuel system.
- moomin 1y agoThis is wild if so. They’re basically saying the UK gets what it needs (investment) in return for something the Labour Right has always wanted (Nuclear). This is an insanely good deal from Starmer’s perspective.
- seydor 1y ago[flagged]
- tempodox 1y ago[flagged]
- alephnerd 1y agoGood to see some Biden-era initiatives are still sneaking through the cracks! Of course, a lot of this is 100% due to the alignment of a large portion of SV-turned-policymakers in both admins across the pond over the past 5 years.
- KaiserPro 1y agoThe problem with policy announcements from the current Whitehouse is that it requires us to believe that they are making policy and that it'll be enacted lawfully. I'm british, so this should be unvarnished good news. but I just can't imagine this will survive any time past the first bad fox news headline.
- alephnerd 1y agoNot everything in the White House is going through Stephen Miller. This announcement itself has Vance, Sankar, and Kupor's fingerprints all over it. For tech policy this admin is a basically A16Z and Founders Fund people, but the last admin leaned Sequoia Capital. This is why you see a lot of crypto (A16Z) this admin and GreenTech (Sequoia) the last admin.
- SilverElfin 1y agoI think the crypto thing is even simpler - it’s self interest. It helps get votes on the right due to distrust in the federal reserve, it helps secure future political funds from a16z and others, and it literally makes Trump and his family rich from the meme coins.
- KaiserPro 1y ago> Not everything in the White House is going through Stephen Miller. No, but its not based on real law either. Its just whatever the leadership thinks it can get away with. If you can please the head of the court, then you can do what you want. if you fall out of favour, so do your plans.
- alephnerd 1y ago> but its not based on real law either. Its just whatever the leadership thinks it can get away with. I agree. We've ended up adopting the worst aspects of SpAds with none of the checks that come from a PS. DOGE lead to a large portion of the SES (our equivalent of the SCS except they don't make tea, bring biscuits, and act as bagmen for ministers) clamming their mouths.
- hereme888 1y agoGood. The West would likely benefit from strong international partnerships for advancing AI, nuclear, and quantum tech. Especially the part about helping the UK become Russia-independent for energy.
- lazyeye 1y agoAgreed. Its a great first step with hopefully more to come.
- croes 1y agoTrump killed that strong partnership, this is just a deal with an unreliable partner you don’t want to be dependent on. He will exploit as soon it fits his need. Somehow worse than Russia
- tialaramex 1y ago> Russia-independent for energy It's specifically about nuclear fuel. The UK doesn't mine Uranium, but it does do fuel manufacture & imports from several countries. I wasn't able to find what, if any, "Russian" influence there is. Maybe the CEO at the fuel plant likes Russian vodka and now he'll be told to buy Polish instead ?
- nine_k 1y ago«The UK does not directly import Russian crude oil, refined products, or gas, having imposed a ban in late 2022 and early 2023 to counter the war in Ukraine. However, fuel derived from Russian oil is still indirectly imported into the UK through a loophole that allows Russian crude to be refined in other countries, like India and Turkey, and then sold to the UK.» (Gemini, but I'd have written the same.)
- tialaramex 1y agoGemini thinks our nuclear power plants use "fuel derived from Russian oil" ? The text is about Nuclear fuel > The TPD also commits the UK to achieve full independence from Russian nuclear fuel by the end of 2028 This whole "deal" is largely waffle and nonsense, the two countries are going to somehow work together to achieve nuclear fusion with AI, and they're going to create a quantum supply chain, and this is going to unlock breakthroughs in health care... Stop trying to figure out what would make sense. Donald Trump has no idea what sense would be and Starmer is mostly just glad to avoid Donald deciding Farage should be Prime Minister now or whatever other nonsense he might decide on a whim.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoNothing binding, just talking about goals: -The U.K. commits to buying over $80 billion from U.S. tech & defense companies over the next five years. -The U.K. firm GSK (a pharmaceutical company) announced a ~$30 billion investment in AI R&D and infrastructure in the U.S. -There will be regulatory cooperation to speed up approvals/licensing in nuclear energy.
- 724324hsG 1y agoIt appears that the UK and the EU will buy weapons from the US for the Ukraine war (which the US, according to Trump, provoked) while the US is busy getting Venezuela and Greenland. Once accomplished the US will have complete energy dominance over the UK and the EU.
- ipaddr 1y agoCanada and Germany reached an deal/found buyer for new Canadian Germany trade route. Canada has a huge reserve of energy that matches well with Europe's needs. Trump's power slowly ticks away aw time passes.
- SilverElfin 1y agoSurprising given the disagreement with Starmer on Israel and the UK’s recognition of Palestine. On the one hand, the UK’s conditions for the recognition may never be met. On the other hand, it still looks like Starmer may be rewarding the actions of October 7 and distancing themselves from the US.
- 1659447091 1y ago> On the one hand, the UK’s conditions for the recognition may never be met. They just recognized it "UK formally recognises Palestinian state" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce800enrglzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce800enrglzo Related post here got flagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45322919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45322919 PSA, See flagged post in the "active" tab https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active
- SilverElfin 1y agoYes that recognition requires multiple conditions. It isn’t just a plain recognition. I believe the other 10 or so countries who announced the same thing are using the same conditions. But it’s hard to find a confirmation.
- ycombigators 1y ago[flagged]
- vixen99 1y agoHow interesting.
- ycombigators 1y agoPeople say to me, how interesting... and they're right. They right! Nobody knows how interesting more than me.
- umrashrf 1y agoEasier said than done
- moomin 1y agoI know a small bit about energy in the UK and one thing I know is this isn’t the first time a Labour government has taken a big swing for nuclear. Indeed, I suspect the exact same guy has been behind it both times. But it’s never happened, and I have to suspect this is because, as great as the technology is, the U.K. just doesn’t really need it and it’s not really commercially viable. Renewables plus batteries are already pretty competitive and are only getting cheaper and more effective with every passing year. Gas is still cheap and can take uo the base load slack. The only way this stops being true is if Putin turns the taps off, but he’s blinked too often on that front.
- shadowgovt 1y agoThe UK IIUC has a lot of offshore property they can put wind farms (I don't know what that does to traditional uses of the waters, such as fishing; I'm sure there's a row about it). In contrast, they have no domestic uranium sources, right? And while an idea like "One or two nuclear plants could provide for 100% of demand" sounds good, that means there's two locations to target to bring the entire grid down, which has strategic consequences. I'm pretty pro-nuclear and I concur that for the UK, I don't think the risk/reward chart actually pans out the way they want it to.
- dazc 1y agoRenewables in the UK are intermittent, all at once at not at all. We also have a crazy scenario where we have so much wind power at times that it has to be turned off because the grid can't handle the load and battery storage is scarce - we then compensate the owners of the turbines for the income they lose as a consequence. Gas is very expensive here, we don't buy any from Putin, we import it from the US where it is liquefied, shipped thousands of miles and then un-liquefied for end use. Our businesses are dying trying to compete with countries that pay multiples less for energy than we do. More nuclear would give us long-term, uninterrupted supply - especially since small modular reactors can be located where the power is needed without needing the national infrastructure to be upgraded.
- ChrisArchitect 1y agoRelated: Britain jumps into bed with Palantir in £1.5B defense pact https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45313793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45313793
- Yoric 1y agoAm I the only one who notices that "Technology Prosperity Deal" would be a really good name for, say, a tech dominion over a distant, formerly powerful country, in any cyberpunk near-future fiction?
- theturtle 1y ago[flagged]
- stuaxo 1y agoAh, bloody hell :(