To the foaming mad Brexiters crying foul that democracy has been thwarted...

[Bean]

It's amazing how data varies depending on where you look. Trading Economics says Lithuania are spending 1.96% on defence, NATO says it 1.72%.
But I'm still intrigued - your figure of 6.6% - did you just add up all the % differences? If so, you're doing the sums incorrectly.

To be fair, I did ask you, what figure you arrived at, or whether you couldn't be bothered to work it out, earlier in the thread...

Googled Nato spending by country, then subtracted the values of eu countries from 2% and then added it all up etc... What figure do you arrive at, or cba?

I subtracted the values from the following table from 2%, then added them up, as an 'EU bloc', since earlier in the thread you posted the total GDP of the EU-UK - I was trying to arrive at some figure for the EU defence spending deficit.



Does anyone have a better calculation and can show their working?
Happy to be corrected on this.

[Bean]

Maybe I’m missing something, but how could every EU country increasing their defence expenditure to 2% add up to 6.6% of GDP?

By definition, it is still 2% overall?

Not every country spends the same at the moment, so the starting position isn't the same.

the '~6.6%' figure, was a % of the EU total GDP, earlier posted by WTFH.

Yes, it may be slightly inaccurate, but quick (i.e. beermat maths), but it should still be relatively in the ballpark.

[darmstadt]

To be fair, I did ask you, what figure you arrived at, or whether you couldn't be bothered to work it out, earlier in the thread...


I subtracted the values from the following table from 2%, then added them up, as an 'EU bloc', since earlier in the thread you posted the total GDP of the EU-UK - I was trying to arrive at some figure for the EU defence spending deficit.



Does anyone have a better calculation and can show their working?
Happy to be corrected on this.

Why not go to the source rather than the House of Commons?

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...2018-16-en.pdf

[Bean]

Why not go to the source rather than the House of Commons?

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...2018-16-en.pdf

Because google did not present them as the top image result.

It was 'beermat maths' and actually, the figures don't vary by much between the two sources from a quick glance, maybe another ~0.3%.

Anyone fancy calculating the total EU defence spending deficit, compared to the NATO commitment of 2% of GDP?

I suppose if I have the time, I'll multiply the deficit per country, by their GDP, add it all up and then divide by the EU GDP figures given by WTFH earlier - that would be more accurate wouldn't it?

WTFH - is there an even better methodology, that you can think of and would share?

[darmstadt]

Because google did not present them as the top image result.

It was 'beermat maths' and actually, the figures don't vary by much between the two sources from a quick glance, maybe another ~0.3%.

Anyone fancy calculating the total EU defence spending deficit, compared to the NATO commitment of 2% of GDP?

I suppose if I have the time, I'll multiply the deficit per country, by their GDP, add it all up and then divide by the EU GDP figures given by WTFH earlier - that would be more accurate wouldn't it?

WTFH - is there an even better methodology, that you can think of and would share?

Ah, much like DexEU

BTW, the NATO figure of 2% is just a guideline, it is not required to spend 2% of GDP on defence...

[Bean]

Ah, much like DexEU

BTW, the NATO figure of 2% is just a guideline, it is not required to spend 2% of GDP on defence...

Counter the figures, if you feel it is not even 'ballpark'

BTW,
"That is almost double the target of 2% of GDP that NATO members all agreed to in 2006."
https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...y-nato-members

So what is it people say about 'cake & eat it', with regards to 'commitments'?

[meridian]

To the foaming mad Brexiters crying foul that democracy has been thwarted...

Not every country spends the same at the moment, so the starting position isn't the same.

the '~6.6%' figure, was a % of the EU total GDP, earlier posted by WTFH.

Yes, it may be slightly inaccurate, but quick (i.e. beermat maths), but it should still be relatively in the ballpark.

So you’re adding up the differences between x (being the % currently spent) and 2 (being the notional target %) for each country, to arrive at ~6.6?

[Bean]

So you’re adding up the differences between x (being the % currently spent) and 2 (being the notional target %) for each country, to arrive at ~6.6?

Yes, as quick and nasty 'beermat maths' for the total deficit of the EU NATO members.

However, I did suggest if I get some more time I could use the following methodology, to increase accuracy;

Multiply the deficit per country, by their GDP, add it all up and then divide by the EU GDP figures given by WTFH earlier - that would be more accurate wouldn't it?

[meridian]

To the foaming mad Brexiters crying foul that democracy has been thwarted...

Yes, as quick and nasty 'beermat maths' for the total deficit of the EU NATO members.

However, I did suggest if I get some more time I could use the following methodology, to increase accuracy;

Multiply the deficit per country, by their GDP, add it all up and then divide by the EU GDP figures given by WTFH earlier - that would be more accurate wouldn't it?

Oh. That just appears to be bad maths.

If you were adding up an historical defence payment deficit to calculate how much additional (over and above the 2%) was required to “catch up”, then 6.6% might be achievable.

All countries eventually spending 2% of GDP on defence would still only add up to a grand total of 2% overall, though.

[meridian]

All of which begs the question of just what we all need to spend 2% for anyway.

Excluding USA and Canada (hopefully our allies), Russia is the world’s largest spender on “defence”. Yet the EU as a whole still dwarfs Russia.

The USA massively increased their defence budget after 9/11, but that threat has largely subsided.