The ETO will:
- Have the flexibility to design packages to incentivise exceptional talent to relocate to Britain
- Cover all STEM fields
- Target the diaspora as well as international talent.
- Provide a fast-tracked ETO visa (capped at 100 a year)
- Leverage philanthropic co‑funding

The ETO’s goal: relocate world-class talent so they discover, build & scale in Britain – in service of economic growth and prosperity for the British people.

We want a new idea forge that builds the future in Britain.

But the UK is making itself unattractive to high-skilled migrants, and we are a net exporter of AI talent.

Advancing the technological frontier & delivering growth, often depends on a small number of top performers:
- 1% of scientists capture more than 1/5th of citations globally
- A handful of researchers account for most high-value patents
- Star inventors build better companies than their peers

In the 1960-90s: Immigrant engineers— the “Traitorous Eight,” Andy Grove, Morris Chang— seeded Silicon Valley; by 2012, 44 % of its high-tech firms had immigrant founders.

In the 1930-50s: European émigrés filled labs from Los Alamos to Bletchley, tipping the balance in rocketry, code-breaking & nuclear science; the US even ran Operation Paperclip, the UK Operation Surgeon, to headhunt and relocate them.

History shows that human talent can shift the balance of global power. Inflows of exceptional talent shaped the rocket age, powered Bletchley Park’s wartime code-breaking, and built Silicon Valley & the chip industry.

Britain’s long-term economic growth and strategic heft depend on winning top-tier scientists, engineers, and technical founders.

Following the government's announcement of a new head-hunting unit for exceptional talent, I wrote for
@britishprogress.bsky.social on what it should look like:

Great piece by @chriscurtis94.bsky.social in @thetimes.com

"In the end, our test for the bill’s success is simple: will it stop the next bat tunnel?"

www.thetimes.com/article/8330...

The UK government must update legislation to create a distinct legal category for delivery bots—separate from motor vehicles—to allow safe and regulated use on pavements.

Because these two images are obviously not the same…

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is moving forward.

🇺🇸 United States: Over 23 states have legalised delivery bots, and companies like Serve Robotics are expanding with Uber Eats.
🇪🇪 Estonia: Changed traffic laws in 2017, now a hub for delivery robotics.
🇯🇵 Japan: Approved delivery robots in 2023.

Under the Highways Act 1835, it’s illegal to drive a “carriage” (which now includes autonomous robots) on pavements. This means delivery robots can only operate in tiny, council-approved pilot schemes (like Milton Keynes).

This week I learnt cute delivery robots are illegal in the UK because a law ***from 1835*** still governs how things move on British pavements. 🧵

The solution? We are proposing a two-tiered insolvency system along the lines of the US bankruptcy code, which, in international comparison, has proven to balance the conflicting motives of bankruptcy law better than other systems.

Debtor-friendly bankruptcy reforms are strongly linked to higher rates of firm creation, self-employment, and patenting.

The US has consistently outpaced the UK in entrepreneurial activity. And there is strong evidence that the incentives created by their bankruptcy code contribute to this.

The UK's aversion to risk-taking and its tendency to penalise failure are often chalked up to culture. But this is a systemic problem – our system actively works against innovation. One place you can see this? Bankruptcy law.

New @ukdayone.bsky.social briefing by Johannes Matt