Defense and arms industry lobbyists hold a substantial degree of influence on British and European defense policy, often to a greater extent than national security agencies or NATO, especially in areas of procurement, industrial strategy, and R&D.

While national security agencies and NATO set strategic requirements, the arms industry uses its lobbying power to shape the policies that determine how those requirements are met.

The UK's "Open-Plan Office" Relationship

In the UK, the relationship between the government and the defense industry is so deeply embedded that it's been described as more of an "open-plan office" than a "revolving door." The influence of arms companies is not merely a matter of lobbying from the outside; they are institutionalized partners in the policymaking process.

• Institutionalized Access: The UK government has an agency within the Department for Business and Trade, UK Defence & Security Exports, whose sole purpose is to promote arms exports. This institutionalizes a direct channel for the industry's interests at the heart of government. Senior figures from defense companies are also regularly seconded to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), blurring the lines between the regulator and the regulated.

• Dominant Voice: The arms industry, particularly major players like BAE Systems, has unparalleled access to the highest levels of government. Records show thousands of meetings between top defense firms and government officials, far outnumbering meetings with civil society groups or academics. This dominant voice can effectively exclude competing interests and ideas from the policy debate.

• Influence on Procurement: The arms industry has significant influence over defense procurement, which is a key driver of policy. Reports show that a large portion of MoD spending on equipment is through non-competitive contracts, effectively guaranteeing profits for top suppliers. Lobbying contributes to a system where expensive, high-tech systems are prioritized, even if more cost-effective options would be more beneficial to national security.

The EU's Militarization and Industry's Role

In the EU, the arms industry has played a pivotal role in the increasing militarization of the Union's defense policy. While the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) has been a slow-moving project, industry lobbying has been a key driver in accelerating its development, particularly through the establishment of dedicated defense funds.

• Shaping the European Defence Fund (EDF): The creation of the EDF, with a budget of nearly €8 billion for 2021-2027, is a prime example of industry influence. The European Commission set up advisory groups heavily dominated by arms company representatives, who were able to shape the fund's agenda and priorities. This ensured that the EDF would primarily serve the industry's interests, with proposals from the industry being almost literally copied into official policy documents.

• The Revolving Door: The "revolving door" is highly active in Brussels, with former EU officials and political figures moving into lucrative positions within the defense industry. This gives companies an invaluable network of contacts and insider knowledge, allowing them to exert influence away from the public eye.

• Promotion of a "War Economy": The arms industry has successfully lobbied for the EU to shift from a focus on peace-building to a "war economy," where defense spending and industrial capacity are seen as a strategic pillar of the European economy. This is a direct result of lobbying campaigns that have framed increased military spending as a necessary response to global security threats, even before major conflicts provided an ex-post justification.

Comparison with NATO and National Security Agencies

While the arms industry wields immense influence, it's important to understand its relationship to NATO and national security agencies.

• NATO's Role: NATO's primary function is to set strategic requirements and capability targets for its member states. It is the forum where allies collectively agree on the need for specific military capabilities to ensure interoperability and mutual defense. For example, NATO might call for member states to increase their spending on air defense systems or to develop specific drone capabilities.

• National Security Agencies: National security agencies, such as intelligence services or defense ministries, provide the threat assessments and strategic analysis that form the basis of defense policy. They advise governments on what capabilities are needed to counter specific threats.

The Influence Dynamic: The influence of the arms industry is not in defining the overarching strategic threats—that is the domain of national security agencies and NATO. Instead, its power lies in shaping the how and what of the response. For example:

• A national security agency may identify the need for enhanced maritime surveillance.

• Defense lobbyists will then work to ensure that the policy response is to purchase a new fleet of expensive, high-tech patrol vessels from their company, rather than, for instance, investing in lower-cost, dual-use technology or diplomatic solutions.

• This influence is exerted through a combination of financial power, a "revolving door" that places former officials in advisory roles, and the creation of think tanks and expert groups that reinforce the industry's preferred policy solutions.

In conclusion, the influence of the defense and arms industry on British and European defense policy is substantial, arguably exceeding the direct influence of national security agencies or NATO in the areas of procurement and industrial strategy.

While NATO and national security agencies set the strategic "what," the arms industry and its lobbyists are highly effective in shaping the practical and financial "how," ensuring that policy outcomes serve corporate interests alongside national security objectives.