Lobbying activities of the military-industrial complex in Britain and Europe are notably opaque. While some transparency measures exist, they are widely considered insufficient, riddled with loopholes, and fail to capture the full extent of the industry's influence.

This lack of transparency is particularly pronounced in the UK, but also evident in the EU's evolving defense policy.

Transparency in the United Kingdom

The UK's system for lobbying transparency is fundamentally flawed by design, making it a challenge for citizens to track the activities of the defense industry.

The 'In-House' Lobbying Loophole

The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 is the UK's primary law on the subject. However, its most significant weakness is that it only requires "consultant lobbyists" (firms that lobby for clients) to register. It explicitly excludes "in-house" lobbyists, who are employed directly by companies. Since major defense contractors like BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, and Babcock all have extensive in-house public affairs teams, their lobbying activities are largely hidden from the public. This means that the official UK lobbying register provides a woefully incomplete picture of the sector's influence.

The "Open-Plan Office"

Beyond the legal loopholes, the relationship between the UK government and the defense industry is characterized by a high degree of integration. The lines between the two are often blurred, making external scrutiny difficult. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) and other government departments regularly have senior executives from defense firms seconded to them, and senior civil servants and military officials often move directly into lucrative jobs in the industry. This "revolving door" is a powerful form of influence that is not captured by lobbying registers. . The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA), which is supposed to regulate these moves, has been criticized for being a "toothless watchdog" as its recommendations are not legally binding.

Financial Opacity

The UK's system also lacks financial transparency. It does not require lobbyists to disclose how much money they spend on their activities. This makes it impossible to gauge the financial scale of defense lobbying. The financial influence that does get disclosed, such as the funding of All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs), only provides a partial view.

Transparency in the European Union

The EU's system is generally considered more transparent than the UK's, but it still has significant shortcomings when it comes to the military-industrial complex.

The EU Transparency Register

The EU Transparency Register is a central public database that provides some information on who is lobbying EU institutions. It requires organizations, including major defense contractors like Airbus, Leonardo, and Thales, to register and disclose their lobbying budgets and the policy areas they are interested in. A key feature is the public record of meetings: officials and key politicians in the European Commission and Parliament are now required to publish records of their meetings with lobbyists. This provides a valuable, albeit incomplete, paper trail of influence.

Significant Loopholes

Despite these measures, the EU's system has a number of loopholes. The register relies on self-reported data, and enforcement is weak. Studies by watchdog groups like Corporate Europe Observatory and Transparency International EU have found that lobbying spending is often under-reported, and a significant amount of lobbying takes place in informal settings or with lower-level officials, which is not subject to public disclosure.

The "Revolving Door"

The "revolving door" is also a major issue in Brussels. The EU's ethical committees that oversee the movement of officials into the private sector have been criticized for a lack of rigor. While some rules and a cooling-off period exist, they are often seen as insufficient to prevent conflicts of interest. For example, a former EU defense official with a deep understanding of the European Defence Fund (EDF) could move to a private firm to help it secure contracts from that same fund.

The Consequences of Opacity

The lack of transparency surrounding the military-industrial complex in Britain and Europe has several major consequences:

• Regulatory Capture: Opacity facilitates a risk of regulatory capture, where the interests of the defense industry become prioritized over the public good. Without a clear view of who is lobbying and for what, it is difficult to identify and challenge potential conflicts of interest.

• Skewed Policy Outcomes: The secrecy allows the industry to disproportionately influence defense policy, from procurement decisions to R&D funding. This can lead to the acquisition of expensive, high-tech systems that may not be the most effective solution for national security, but are the most profitable for the companies that make them.

• Erosion of Public Trust: When the public learns of behind-the-scenes influence and conflicts of interest, it erodes trust in political institutions and the defense establishment. It creates the perception that defense policy is being made to benefit a powerful few rather than to protect the public.

In conclusion, the transparency of lobbying by the military-industrial complex in Britain and Europe is severely limited. While some measures exist, they fail to capture the full scope of the industry's influence, particularly its in-house lobbying, the financial scale of its activities, and the powerful role of the "revolving door." A truly transparent system would require mandatory registration for all lobbyists, comprehensive financial disclosures, and a much stronger regulatory framework to manage conflicts of interest.