Dr. Karsten Wildberger, Germany’s new Federal Minister for Digital Transformation and Government Modernisation, has raised important concerns about the EU AI Act. He argues that its regulatory framework is being introduced prematurely—before a strong European AI market has emerged—and stiffles innovation. “Sometimes it’s wiser to pause and reassess when circumstances evolve,” he told the Financial Times (link below), underscoring how the Act creates barriers that deter companies from experimenting and scaling AI within Europe.
His remarks highlight a broader tension: Europe aspires to lead in AI, yet risks undermining its own ambitions by prioritizing control over cultivation. Regulations must ensure safety and ethics, but they must also be proportionate, flexible, and designed to nurture domestic innovation rather than handicap it before it can properly grow.
I have long shared such perspective. The EU AI Act should be an enabling framework—one that encourages responsible innovation and leaves room for European AI to flourish—rather than a dense rulebook that makes compliance more burdensome than discovery.
A parallel challenge exists in the United Kingdom. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), which oversees Innovate UK, is currently led by Liz Kendall MP, Secretary of State since 5 September 2025. While DSIT champions innovation in principle, its policies and funding calls often prove too narrow in scope. I have voiced these concerns directly to the previous Conservative Secretary of State and more recently through LinkedIn posts addressed to the new leadership. Responses are however more than elusive, non-existent as far as I am concerned.
As a result my company’s award-winning blockchain technology is currently being trialled in the United States, in part because Innovate UK’s regulatory and funding frameworks are too narrowly defined. That is a missed opportunity for the UK, where such technologies could be developed, tested, and scaled with the right policy support.
This points to a larger issue. The Prime Minister’s governmental programme is, as I write, widely criticised for being vague, verbose, and lacking in practical definition. That tendency—ambition framed in grand terms but without clear delivery pathways—appears to have filtered down to DSIT as well. The ministry speaks eloquently about fostering science, research, and innovation, but rhetoric alone is not enough. What is needed is a pragmatic, responsive, and transparent strategy that actively empowers innovators rather than placing them in funding straitjackets which never fit the developed innovation or it’s creators’ needs
* Christian de Vartavan is an eminent scholar and now CEO of a London blockchain consulting company and Associate, APPG AI, House of Lords.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
Geoff Reid
Margaret Pollus
David Raw
2 Comments
“Sometimes it’s wiser to pause and reassess when circumstances evolve,”
Sound words in the case of “Automated Ignorance”.
Real world results are coming in and they aren’t good: 95% of projects fail ie. “AI” added negative value. Computer programming, claims of 20% efficiency improvements on investigation are found to be 20% reductions in productivity and significantly worse code being produced. That is before we hit its hunger for scarce resources for which there are better uses Ieg. Do you want electricity and drinking water, or go without just so some “AI” can improve a photo you took or decides you really need to buy something based on its algorithm?) or as M&S discovered, when the AI/computer is turned off you are left with no one who can actually run the business and ensure shelves are stocked and goods sold…
Blockchain is another hyped IT technology that, whilst based on some seemingly good ideas, has a significant downside. It too is computationally expensive.
Given the current environment where we, should be reducing our excessive dependence on the US, we need to be investing in technology and innovation other than IT.
Thank you, Roland, for your comment. You are absolutely right—investment in innovation should be broad and inclusive. It should not be limited only to fields such as IT, AI, or Blockchain, but should extend to any area where something genuinely new and valuable can emerge. This is precisely where competence and open-mindedness become essential, and at present, we seem to be lacking in both.