Post US election: let's not bury the future of transatlantic tech cooperation yet

We didn’t have to wait long after the US Presidential elections to hear some European tech thought leaders to: 1) call for a greater digital sovereignty, stating “we have no other choice now”; 2) think the US elections will make American talent flee the US (or encourage global talent choose EU over the US if stricter migration rules are implemented under Trump’s administration). 

Social media comments aside, as we enter  a phase of extreme realpolitik (with additional flavors) during times of major global challenges and with the rules-based international order shifting, neither the EU nor the US can afford to lose allies.

On the contrary, both the U.S. and the EU now have a new window of opportunity for a more constructive, less emotionally charged dialogue. With China-led discussions on BRICS’ digital sovereignty goals and multiple reports on Chinese-Russian collaboration in areas such as space technology, this represents a significant shared concern that both sides of the Atlantic could engage in together. Both the (projected) U.S. President and the European Commission have already voiced concerns about China, whether broadly or with respect to overreliance on Chinese infrastructure in telecommunications.

Digital sovereignty - one size doesn’t fit all 

Yesterday, former Commissioner Thierry Breton was one of many who called for ‘strategic autonomy’ in the language of Esopus:

Others were more specific about the need for Europe to build up its tech muscle and reduce reliance on American-origin technology.

Europe needs to stay focused and aim carefully when it comes to its digital sovereignty. The term ‘digital sovereignty’ should not become an overinflated term used by anyone to describe anything.

Should European laws, regulations, and competition practices enable greater technical interoperability, improved licensing practices, next to upskilling of the public sector to avoid poor contracts and unsuccessful projects? Absolutely.

Should the EU put an end to its embarrassing reliance on Chinese telecom equipment? Absolutely.

Should European companies which are unable to prove themselves globally competitve be supported via regulatory carve-outs to increase their market share in Europe (or profit from global companies based in Europe)? Absolutely not, as this is only a temporary solution that may further deepen issues with European competitiveness.

Attracting global talent - let's think about business & innovation climate, not visas only

Former MEP Marietje Schaake was among the many quick to predict a doomsday scenario for American talent and academia, calling for easier tech migration rules in the EU:

Easier migration options for global, high skilled talent is certainly needed, but the EU’s regulatory environment (and the ambition to deepen it further) is a major deterrent. Not only for global talent, but also for Europeans who often choose to leave the EU after scaling when the compliance becomes too burdensome financially or makes it impossible to further develop their products on the European soil.

A few years ago, when the tech market and tech hiring slowed down in California, we also heard of a similar European Commission’s ambition to attract talent from Silicon Valley. We have yet to receive any updates on whether that ambition has borne any fruit.

Ambition is good, but wishful thinking and Potemkin village practices are extremely harmful for the EU’s future. If Europe really wants to become a ‘go-to’ destination for global talent, we have to rethink our red tape or the way we fight it. We need to reconsider how our academia operates and whether Europe’s business and innovation climate is strong enough for global achievers to see potential in it.