00:40:50	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	And we are joined by Luke Butler from the University of Nottingham -- he was part of our earlier panel on EU defense procurement, which is on publicprocurementinternational.com.  I am betraying my nervousness and forgot to introduce him!  Luke is a leading scholar in this area, and his book on EU/US defense procurement is on the program page at www.publicprocurementinternational.com -- and his most recent piece is at https://mostlyprocurement.typepad.com/my-blog/2022/11/developments-and-directions-in-eu-defence-procurement-regulation-and-implications-for-the-defence-re.html.  Thanks to Luke!!!
00:54:12	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	Marques Peterson co-edited a volume on international government contracting for the American Bar Association -- a chapter in that volume that Allen Green and I co-wrote on international trade agreements on procurement, including the reciprocal defense procurement agreements that Dan so ably explained, is on www.ssrn.com.
00:56:48	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	From Dan Schoeni:  As I mentioned, reciprocal defense procurement agreements (RPDs) are embedded in DFARs 225.872-1: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart-225.8-other-international-agreements-and-coordination.
00:57:59	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	From Dan Schoeni:  Here's an example of a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement from Nov 2021 (Lithuania): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/09/2021-24558/negotiation-of-a-reciprocal-defense-procurement-agreement-with-the-ministry-of-national-defence-of
01:00:20	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	From Dan Schoeni:  I mentioned Sophie de Vaucorbeil's article, which provides a useful table listing some examples of weapon systems or components that America is buying from Europe, which can be found here: https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/towards-european-defence-market.
01:03:26	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	From Dan Schoeni:  Martin Sieff, “Europe Can Offer Defense Deals Washington Can’t Refuse” (2009):
https://www.europeaninstitute.org/index.php/current-issue/9-european-affairs/european-affairs/53-europe-can-offer-defense-deals-washington-cant-refuse.
01:04:47	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	From Dan:  As to my suggestion about expanding the NTIB to include not only Canada, the UK, and Australia but also our friends in Europe, here's a recent piece article by the Atlantic Council: https://atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Leveraging_the_National_Technology_Industrial_Base_to_Address_Great-Power_Competition.pdf
01:06:44	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	It's 22:37 in Hong Kong -- thank you, Kate!
01:21:45	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	From Michael:  And semi-seriously, semi-seriously on the struggles in establishing security see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11394445/Liz-Truss-FOURTH-new-mobile-phone-number-July-alleged-Russian-hacking.html
01:34:07	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	From Luke Butler:  From Luke:  European perspective – OK, so we all love FMS and they are increasing… BUT
Q: Do you think US FMS should be open to more scrutiny/transparency within recipient countries? OK, the US might say “that’s for the receiving country to decide”. However, just note that not everyone is happy to just accept US FMS as representing a good deal for the taxpayer. In the UK, G2G contracts are currently excluded from our rules on pricing oversight. However, our Single Source Regulations Office which oversees how single source defence contracts are priced (FMS are considered single source here) suggested we should subject FMS to pricing oversight to ensure they represent value for money (P8-A Poseidon triggered concern).
01:34:20	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	From Luke:  References here (in case anyone is interested in what our regulator thinks about FMS): 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586659/Review_of_the_Single_Source_Regulatory_Framework_-_Consultation_on_recommendations_26_Jan_2017.pdf
Paras.14.1-14.11
01:40:54	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	From Luke:  Again, just in case interested - there is the US-UK Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty on ITAR/licensing waivers as the UK is an "approved community". Anecdotal evidence is that UK suppliers have not been making use of the exemptions. The treaty seemed to have sort of fizzled out (aided by some relaxation of US DDTC controls in any event). But I could be wrong...