Article
Britain’s economic performance offers an increasingly persuasive argument for greater regulatory divergence from the European Union. Artificial intelligence, genetic technologies and financial services suggest that economic sovereignty can produce measurable returns
BRITAIN HAS ACQUIRED an economic advantage that its government seems inexplicably determined to squander. Despite weak political leadership, fiscal uncertainty and an increasingly burdensome tax environment, the British economy continues to outperform France. The explanation may lie less in what Westminster has done than in what Brussels prevents its member states from doing.
The latest economic figures illustrate the point.
British GDP expanded by 0.6 per cent in the first quarter of 2026 and 0.5 per cent in the second. France, meanwhile, recorded a contraction in the first quarter and considerably weaker activity in the second. Britain's economy subsequently grew by another 0.7 per cent in the three months to August, supported by a 0.9 per cent expansion in services. The figures suggest a sustained difference in economic momentum rather than an isolated quarterly fluctuation.
Inflation readings further validate the comparison. France's inflation is 3.4 per cent, while Britain's came in at 3.5 per cent. The stronger claim is therefore that Britain has achieved superior real economic growth despite considerable domestic policy failures. A compelling explanation is emerging from three sectors in which Britain enjoys greater regulatory freedom: artificial intelligence, genetic technologies and financial services.
The first two are especially significant because they concern the technologies most likely to determine productivity growth over the next decade. The third demonstrates that regulatory independence can already be translated into an economic strategy.
The economic dividend of artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence offers the clearest early evidence. According to figures supplied to Parliament in July 2026, Britain's AI industry generated £11.8 billion in gross value added in 2024 and supported more than 86,000 jobs. A government sector study found that AI-related business revenues increased by approximately 68 per cent in 2024, reaching £23.9 billion. Gross value added among dedicated AI companies increased by 83 per cent. These figures describe an industry expanding considerably faster than the wider economy.
Britain's advantage is partly institutional. The European Union adopted the AI Act, imposing a comprehensive regulatory framework on the development and deployment of artificial intelligence. Britain has instead preferred to apply existing sectoral regulation, allowing specialist regulators to respond to technological developments without constructing an entirely new regulatory apparatus.
Brussels has already recognised the competitive problem. Its July 2026 AI Omnibus extended implementation deadlines for certain high-risk systems to December 2027 and August 2028, while simplifying compliance requirements. The retreat is revealing – the EU Commission is easing rules whose economic consequences it had underestimated.
The British approach reduces regulatory uncertainty in some applications and permits experimentation within existing legal frameworks. For investors, the attraction is straightforward. Lower compliance costs and faster commercial deployment can improve expected returns on innovation. AI also promises productivity improvements throughout the economy, particularly in finance, professional services, pharmaceuticals and scientific research.
The £11.8 billion contribution measures the industry's direct economic significance. Its wider productivity effects could prove substantially larger.
Gene editing: the second growth opportunity
Genetic technologies offer a complementary argument, extending from pharmaceutical research to agricultural productivity.
Britain already possesses a substantial life-sciences industry. Government statistics for 2023–24 identify 7,320 companies employing approximately 359,600 people and generating £146.9 billion in turnover. Biopharmaceutical businesses alone accounted for £98.9 billion. These figures demonstrate the industrial scale available to support the commercialisation of new genetic technologies. The government's July 2026 Life Sciences Jobs Plan estimates pharmaceutical-manufacturing GVA at approximately £530,000 per worker, compared with £75,000 across the economy. Few industries demonstrate so clearly the economic value of scientific innovation and capital-intensive production.
The regulatory divergence is particularly clear in agriculture. Under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and implementing regulations effective from November 2025, England established a distinct authorisation framework for precision-bred organisms. The legislation recognises that certain genetic alterations achievable through modern techniques could also arise through conventional breeding.
European regulation has subjected comparable innovations to the more restrictive genetically modified organism framework. Although the EU has begun reforming its approach, Britain's regime has already enabled applications and regulatory decisions concerning precision-bred crops.
The economic opportunities extend across two industries. In agriculture, precision breeding can accelerate the development of disease-resistant crops, improve yields and reduce dependence on pesticides and other inputs. In biotechnology, gene editing supports therapeutic discovery, genomic research and the development of advanced treatments.
Britain should exploit that opportunity while preserving proportionate safety oversight and protecting the regulatory independence necessary to sustain it.
Financial services provide the precedent
If AI and genetic technologies represent the emerging economic benefits of regulatory autonomy, financial services provide the established industrial foundation.
TheCityUK's June 2026 report estimates that financial and related professional services contributed £290 billion to British gross value added in 2025, approximately 11 per cent of the national total. The industry generated more than £100 billion in tax revenues, employed almost 2.5 million people and produced a £119.1 billion trade surplus. Financial-services productivity was approximately 2.6 times the whole-economy average.
The more relevant evidence comes from sovereign reforms.
Solvency UK, Britain's replacement for elements of the EU's Solvency II insurance framework, has reduced certain capital and compliance burdens and created greater flexibility for insurers. This strengthens the capacity to allocate capital to productive investment, including infrastructure and long-term assets.
London's international position has also proved more resilient than many anticipated. Rather than collapse, as was warned so often in the run-up to the EU referendum, employment in London's financial sector increased from approximately 525,000 in 2016 to 675,000 in 2025. Its continued strength in foreign exchange, derivatives, insurance and fintech demonstrates the durability of Britain's financial ecosystem.
The next opportunity lies in combining financial regulatory autonomy with artificial intelligence. The Financial Conduct Authority is already exploring the use of AI to automate supervision while resisting demands for an entirely new AI-specific financial rulebook. That approach could accelerate innovation in underwriting, investment management, payments, compliance and capital allocation.
Britain should extend this philosophy across wholesale markets, insurance, asset management and financial technology. The objective should be to reduce unnecessary regulatory friction while maintaining the legal certainty and supervisory credibility upon which London's international standing depends.
Regulatory divergence as industrial strategy
The significance of these developments lies in their cumulative effect. Artificial intelligence can increase productivity across the economy. Genetic technologies can strengthen Britain's pharmaceutical and agricultural industries. Financial services can supply the capital, expertise and international distribution networks necessary to commercialise both.
Together, they offer the foundations of an industrial strategy organised around Britain's comparative advantages rather than government-selected national champions.
France provides an instructive comparison. Its economic difficulties reflect several factors, including fiscal pressures, weak investment and political uncertainty. Britain faces many of the same problems. The recent growth differential signals the benefits of competitive regulation and the direct effects of AI and gene editing.
The direction of policy is consequential to being unbound from EU strictures. Britain possesses the institutional freedom to adapt its rules as it sees fit to technological change. France must operate within a European framework negotiated among 27 member states, often reflecting different industrial interests and political priorities. This creates an opportunity that Westminster has barely begun to exploit.
A serious British growth strategy would accelerate AI adoption, support the commercialisation of genetic technologies, preserve the autonomy of precision-breeding regulation and deepen financial-services reform. It would also encourage the convergence of these industries through investment in computational biology, AI-assisted drug discovery, agricultural biotechnology and specialist financing.
The economic case for Brexit has too often been argued through trade statistics, constitutional abstractions and hypothetical counterfactuals. A more productive test concerns what Britain can do with its recovered regulatory powers. The latest growth figures suggest that Britain possesses an advantage worth developing, even under a government whose wider economic policies have frequently frustrated enterprise.
Regulatory sovereignty has economic value only when exercised. In artificial intelligence, genetic technologies and financial services, Britain has the opportunity to convert that sovereignty into a durable competitive advantage.
For those sectors, but also in others, the Government should recognise what the economy is beginning to tell it.
This article first appeared on Global Britain blog on 21 October 2026.
