Defense contracting is deeply weird

A $0.5bn golden goodbye is nice to have for anyone.

Business Insider's Walter Hickey does a weekly round-up of things the American Department of Defence has purchased, and this week's contains a line item which basically sums up defence spending.

This is what the contract press release says:

The Boeing Co., Long Beach, Calif., is being awarded a $500,000,000 firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the C-17 transition to post production, which will provide for orderly transfer of C-17 production assets. The location of the performance is Long Beach, Calif. Work is to be completed by July 5, 2022. ASC/WLMK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8614-12-D-2049, Order 0001).

Hickey translates from DoD-ese:

The Department of Defense decided that they're probably not going to need too many more of Boeing's C-17 jets. So to make sure that the transition from "making C-17s" to "not making C-17s" goes as smoothly as possible, they awarded Boeing a half-billion dollar contract. The production facility in Long Beach California will likely have to have some changes, and Boeing is likely still responsible for parts, maintenance, and upkeep of the C-17 fleet for a while. Still, that's a heck of a severance package.

This is how military contracting works. You get paid to make something, you get paid to stop making things. You get paid if you deliver, you get paid if you don't deliver. You get paid while your things are used, and then you get paid when they stop being used. Generally speaking, you're going to get paid.

A Boeing C-17 jet lands. Photograph: Boeing

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.