Starmer Courageously Stands Against AI Treaty, Protecting UK’s Right to Total Chaos
In a bold display of leadership reminiscent of a deer confidently walking into highway traffic, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has aligned with the United States in refusing to sign the Paris Declaration on AI, a global agreement that dares to suggest some regulation over the most powerful technology in human history.
The declaration, backed by several nations who apparently still believe in concepts like “ethics” and “long-term survival,” sets out basic rules for ensuring AI doesn’t immediately turn the world into a flaming heap of misinformation, lost jobs, and profit-driven doom. But Starmer, ever the visionary, has chosen the bold path of “let’s see what happens” instead.
“Why would we limit AI when it has the potential to dramatically reshape society… most likely by eliminating about half of the jobs currently available?” said a Starmer aide, who refused to comment on whether their own role was safe from automation. “We’re looking at the big picture, and in that picture, we’re quite confident we can wring a few more election cycles out of pretending we have a plan.”
By refusing to sign the agreement, the UK is sending a clear message: nothing—absolutely nothing—will stand in the way of its commitment to deregulation and corporate free-for-alls. “The free market should decide if AI destroys democracy, not some highfalutin international committee,” explained a government spokesperson who, minutes later, was reportedly replaced by a chatbot with the same level of sincerity but slightly fewer blinking functions.
Tech billionaires across the UK have applauded Starmer’s stance, citing a deep commitment to—checks notes—British sovereignty, innovation, and maximizing their offshore accounts before everything implodes. Across the pond, the US stood firm in its refusal as well, with lobbyists reportedly celebrating by lighting cigars with shredded copies of regulatory proposals.
Meanwhile, experts continue to warn of AI’s unchecked dangers, such as deepfakes, algorithmic bias, and the gradual replacement of all human knowledge with a slightly confused digital parrot that repeats misinformation at light speed. But Starmer remains undeterred.
“Innovation requires risk,” he supposedly said, “and if that risk happens to be democratic stability, economic collapse, and the potential for AI CEOs to legally buy human souls, then so be it.”
As the world continues watching, unsure whether to be impressed or terrified, UK citizens can take solace in one thing: at least Starmer finally took a firm stance on something.
