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

[Whorty]

Sas had bean down as CSE stream calibre.

I was going to say CSE myself, but didn't want him thinking I meant GCSE and then him accusing me of making a spelling mistake, so went for O'level instead. Of course, I wouldn't expect him to get grade A-C, Bean is definitely an E in maths (at best).

[Old Greg]

This is basic o'level maths. 13 year old kids should be able to do this. I would really love to know what you do for a job. Clearly not IT as you'd have some maths knowledge. Not having 'sufficient time' is no reason not to know basic maths, that is that you can't just add up %'s.

I call out that you're not a real contractor - do I win my prize for spotting Wally

Sas had bean down as CSE stream calibre.

[Whorty]

Totally get what you're saying and agree.

Thank you very much, for doing the calcs in the correct way, as I didn't manage to find sufficient time to do it.

This is basic o'level maths. 13 year old kids should be able to do this. I would really love to know what you do for a job. Clearly not IT as you'd have some maths knowledge. Not having 'sufficient time' is no reason not to know basic maths, that is that you can't just add up %'s.

I call out that you're not a real contractor - do I win my prize for finding Wally

[Bean]

Adding up % to work out the overall % is the wrong way to go about statistics

Imagine there were just 2 countries, both with a GDP of 200.
One paid 1.5% and the other paid 1.75%
So the total they paid is 3 + 3.5 = 6.5 out of their total GDP of 400
The total they should have paid was 8
The amount they were short was 1.5.
But that the amount, not the percentage.

The percentage they paid was 6.5/400 = 1.625%.
The percentage they were short is 1.5/400 which is 0.375%. This is correct
But if you just add up the individual percentages you would get 0.5+0.25 = 0.75% This is wrong

Totally get what you're saying and agree.

Thank you very much, for doing the calcs in the correct way, as I didn't manage to find sufficient time to do it.

[WTFH]

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.

Adding up % to work out the overall % is the wrong way to go about statistics

Imagine there were just 2 countries, both with a GDP of 200.
One paid 1.5% and the other paid 1.75%
So the total they paid is 3 + 3.5 = 6.5 out of their total GDP of 400
The total they should have paid was 8
The amount they were short was 1.5.
But that the amount, not the percentage.

The percentage they paid was 6.5/400 = 1.625%.
The percentage they were short is 1.5/400 which is 0.375%. This is correct
But if you just add up the individual percentages you would get 0.5+0.25 = 0.75% This is wrong

[WTFH]

For those who are TL;DR:
If UK just paid 2%, UK debt would fall by 0.12% to 85.18%
If EU NATO paid 2%, EU debt (without the UK) would rise by 0.15% to 81.75%
And if the EU NATO members keep their defence spending where it is, when the UK leaves the EU debt would fall 0.7% to 80.9%

[WTFH]

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

It's taking time, but yes. Separating out the difference when reporting "Europe" and the "EU", trying to find consistent figures and then doing the calc.
Table 3 of the NATO report is usable for % defence spending, but the GDP tables in that report are based on 2010 exchange rates, whereas most other sources, such as Trading Economics, use an annual exchange rate.

So, I have looked by individual country using each country's %Defence spend (Source: NATO), % Debt (Source: TE) and GDP (Source: TE) to calculate actual Debt Value, actual Defence Value, Defence Delta (i.e. 2%-current Def Spend), added these to get the Adjusted Debt and a new national New Debt %.
Then take all the countries and add up the values for actual defence value and defence delta. Put those numbers in against the actual EU GDP to calculate back the current % Defence spend, calculate the adjusted debt and then the % debt. Then compare the values with and without the UK.
The following are in billions of USD and based on December 2017 data:

UK Defence 2.12%
UK Debt 85.3%
UK GDP 2622.43
UK Debt 2236.93
UK Defence overspend (0.12%) -3.146916
UK Adjusted debt 2233.79
UK Adjusted debt 85.18%

EU inc UK Defence 1.33%
EU inc UK Debt 81.6%
EU inc UK GDP 17277.7
EU inc UK Debt 14098.6
EU inc UK Defence underspend (0.67%) 115.76
EU inc UK Adjusted debt: 14214.36
EU inc UK Adjusted debt: 82.27%

EU-UK Defence 1.19%
EU-UK Debt 80.9%
EU-UK GDP 14655.27
EU-UK Debt 11861.67
EU-UK Defence underspend (0.81%) 118.91
EU-UK Adjusted debt: 11980.58
EU-UK Adjusted debt: 81.75%

So, the UK leaving the EU, and the NATO EU members all paying 2% would increase the EU debt from 81.6% to 81.75%.
The UK dropping it's defence spend to 2% would reduce the UK debt from 85.3% to 85.18%.

Please note that my EU % Defence spend is less than the headline 1.46% in the NATO table for a couple of reasons:
1. They are basing it on Europe, not the EU (so countries such as Norway are included in their figures)
2. I have calculated up the defence spend two ways and come back with total figures of 229.95 (by adding up the calculation for each individual country) and 229.79 (based on % for the EU). I chose the lower of these to values, so it's possible that my figures for EU current defence spend are too low by $160million, which would mean the adjusted debt I have calculated is higher than it should be.

[scooterscot]

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.

You nailed it. Russia is not the military power that it once was, nor are the people itching to invade the west like Trump & Co. would have you believe.

US probably want EU to purchase its weapons. At the root of it all, it's about money not defence. And the US has weapons to sell.

[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.

[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.

[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...

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]

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'?

[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]

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?