Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home

# Brexiteers: even in victory they can't get the figures straight watch

Announcements
1. Almost every time one of those Brexiteers opens their mouth it makes me laugh. Even now, having got what they wanted, and in ministerial positions, they continue to show that they just cannot grasp the nature of the problem they have created. Here's David Davis, Brexit Minister (and former Tory leadership loser):

Mr Davis said he wanted to trigger Article 50 "early next year" and the timetable had to allow for the UK's "huge negotiation" and for International Trade Secretary Liam Fox to strike deals around the world.

He said: "We'll get a very, very, very large trade area, much, much bigger than the European Union. Probably 10 times the size, well I'm not going to set Liam targets, but a multiple of the size of the European Union. And the moment we leave, they'll all come in."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36819182

Talk about "Project Fantasy". Anyone spot the logical flaw yet?

It's easy enough: the EU has a economy of USD:16.2-18.5tn (depending on which reference you use), the USA has an economy of roughly the same size (USD:17.9tn), the entire world combined has an economy of around USD:73tn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._GDP_(nominal)

If that isn't enough data for you, try this: the EU has around 25% of the global economy, the USA has about another 25%. In order for Liam Fox to get trade deals ten times the size of that it has with the EU he's going to have to do deals with the entire population of this planet, another deal with the entire population of some parallel Earth, and another deal with half the population of yet another parallel Earth.

The absolute best deal he could do is one four times the size of that of the EU, that would be with the entire population of the planet, including the EU. Is that even within the bounds of reality?
2. Well as a mathematician I can't help but point out that he did state 'trade area'.

Now let's get mathematical, because that's what you were doing.

The EU has a land area of 4.238 million sq. km and the world has a land area of 129.74 million sq. km.

So in fact it is mathematically possible to cover a trade area of 10 times the size of the EU, or even 30 times.
3. I'm not saying that trade area is a valid way to quantify trade, but for what he said he is statistically correct.
4. I'm not saying that trade area is a valid way to quantify trade, but for what he said he is statistically correct.
More smoke and mirrors from the Brexiteers. You don't even believe that's what he meant, so why even put up the argument.

With your argument you are basically arguing that a valid way of defining the the EEA is by the land area, rather than by the countries involved, the populations, or dare I suggest it, the size of their overall economies?
5. (Original post by typonaut)
More smoke and mirrors from the Brexiteers. You don't even believe that's what he meant, so why even put up the argument.
So are you saying he meant something he didn't said? Or that he should've said something he didn't meant?

The only conclusion I can make so far that is factually correct, is that you have interpreted his statement wrong.

Also I did not state in what context I felt Mr Davis' comment meant, so here's another interpretation you have made wrong there.
6. (Original post by typonaut)
More smoke and mirrors from the Brexiteers. You don't even believe that's what he meant, so why even put up the argument.

With your argument you are basically arguing that a valid way of defining the the EEA is by the land area, rather than by the countries involved, the populations, or dare I suggest it, the size of their overall economies?
I'm not making any argument (so far) so why are you so sensitive?

Also notice, he did say area.

I really don't see why you seem to be upset that he didn't actually state anything factually incorrect.

It's almost like you are trying to find things to criticise.
7. (Original post by CherishFreedom)
So are you saying he meant something he didn't said? Or that he should've said something he didn't meant?

The only conclusion I can make so far that is factually correct, is that you have interpreted his statement wrong.

Also I did not state in what context I felt Mr Davis' comment meant, so here's another interpretation you have made wrong there.
Sorry, I can't discuss these things with you, you don't seem to have any grasp whatsoever of logic.
8. I imagine you are one of those kids that when someone says 'I will be there in a minute', you say 'Where were you 27.5 seconds ago!!'

Or the kid who, when you say 'Il be done in a second' starts going... '1...'

---

no one likes that kid.

Spoiler:
Show
Don't take exaggerated speak, and rhetoric to literally..
9. Unlucky, typonaut maybe next time man..
10. (Original post by typonaut)
With your argument you are basically arguing that a valid way of defining the the EEA is by the land area, rather than by the countries involved, the populations, or dare I suggest it, the size of their overall economies?
No, David Davis is saying that.

You are making the classic mistake of interpreting a politician's words the way you want to, rather than actually listening to the words. It's called spin, been around years. You'll need to catch up a little.
11. (Original post by Drewski)
No, David Davis is saying that.

You are making the classic mistake of interpreting a politician's words the way you want to, rather than actually listening to the words. It's called spin, been around years. You'll need to catch up a little.
Ok, let's say David Davis really is saying that the land area covered by any new trade deals will be ten times the land area covered by our current trade deal with the EU (I don't accept he is saying that, and I'll explain that point now). This is an entirely meaningless way of measuring anything to do with trade - because it is not a representation of the size of an economy nor of the population of that area.

He could do a trade deal with Antarctica, a population and economy close to zero, and instantly triple the "area" covered by an EU trade deal.

So Mr Davis is either a dope for believing that he could get a trade deal ten times the size of the EU economy (not possible), or a dope for believing that the land area of the regions you have trade deals with is any sensible way of measuring the success of your trade deals (clearly is not).

Are you saying I'm spinning what he said, or that it was spin on his part?
12. (Original post by typonaut)
Are you saying I'm spinning what he said, or that it was spin on his part?
On his part. Your error was trying to translate it into something else.

It's nothing more than a soundbite. We all know it doesn't mean anything.
13. (Original post by typonaut)
Almost every time one of those Brexiteers opens their mouth it makes me laugh. Even now, having got what they wanted, and in ministerial positions, they continue to show that they just cannot grasp the nature of the problem they have created. Here's David Davis, Brexit Minister (and former Tory leadership loser):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36819182

Talk about "Project Fantasy". Anyone spot the logical flaw yet?

It's easy enough: the EU has a economy of USD:16.2-18.5tn (depending on which reference you use), the USA has an economy of roughly the same size (USD:17.9tn), the entire world combined has an economy of around USD:73tn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._GDP_(nominal)

If that isn't enough data for you, try this: the EU has around 25% of the global economy, the USA has about another 25%. In order for Liam Fox to get trade deals ten times the size of that it has with the EU he's going to have to do deals with the entire population of this planet, another deal with the entire population of some parallel Earth, and another deal with half the population of yet another parallel Earth.

The absolute best deal he could do is one four times the size of that of the EU, that would be with the entire population of the planet, including the EU. Is that even within the bounds of reality?
Actually, remove about \$3trn from that(UK economy size) EU now smaller, it has also been in decline for ages. Its also not 25% its like 17% now I think.

Asia is where the growth is coming from, Europe is a slow-growth zone.
14. (Original post by fallen_acorns)
Don't take exaggerated speak, and rhetoric to literally…
I suppose there are a couple of issues here. The first is that the whole LEAVE campaign was "Project Fantasy", and now that we are on this "Fantastic Journey" the people steering the bus still can't get the facts straight in their heads - or somehow think we are too stupid to work out that what they say is utterly meaningless (either they cannot possibly achieve what they say they are aiming for, or the aim is nonsense "puff" - ie if you believe that Davis really is talking about the land area we can do trade deals with).

The second issue is that if a politician says things like this I do genuinely expect, if he/she has any respect for the people and a grasp of the job they are supposed to be doing, to get their guesses/estimates/targets within the bounds of reasonableness, and to have meaning - Davis has failed on both of those.
15. I'll be laughing so hard when the halfwit undergrad students who voted leave will be unemployed in a few years when they graduate. How stupid can you be?
16. (Original post by typonaut)
I suppose there are a couple of issues here. The first is that the whole LEAVE campaign was "Project Fantasy", and now that we are on this "Fantastic Journey" the people steering the bus still can't get the facts straight in their heads - or somehow think we are too stupid to work out that what they say is utterly meaningless (either they cannot possibly achieve what they say they are aiming for, or the aim is nonsense "puff" - ie if you believe that Davis really is talking about the land area we can do trade deals with).

The second issue is that if a politician says things like this I do genuinely expect, if he/she has any respect for the people and a grasp of the job they are supposed to be doing, to get their guesses/estimates/targets within the bounds of reasonableness, and to have meaning - Davis has failed on both of those.
Point 1: Entirely your own opinion, however it's interesting how you state it in a fact-like manner.

Point 2: Why would you expect a Brexit politician to say things you, a Remainer, expect? After all, you are trying to criticise him. Also I think you are the only one misinterpreting his statement so far, the rest of us read it in the appropriate context.

And let's be honest, whatever he said he would not be getting your 'respect', so let's not pretend otherwise.
17. (Original post by ckfeister)
Actually, remove about \$3trn from that(UK economy size) EU now smaller, it has also been in decline for ages. Its also not 25% its like 17% now I think.

Asia is where the growth is coming from, Europe is a slow-growth zone.
The UK economy is about USD:2.8tn. I don't think it makes sense to take that out of the equation, because that is, and remains for some time to come, part of the EU economy. But even if we do that takes the remaining EU economy down to USD:13.4-15.7tn. At the lower limit that's 18.3% of the global economy and at the upper limit it is 21.8%.

So a little way to go on your estimating skills.

As to your claims about growth, I don't think you are really grasping the nature of the problem. The countries you describe as having high growth are amongst the poorest per capita in the world, and their growth and economies are fragile to say the least (take Brazil as a good example - supposedly one the great economies of the world a few years ago, now far from it).

Take India as the example often given. It has a very protectionist economy, it is quite difficult to do business there. That's not by accident, it is by design. If you think we're going to get some tariff-free, anything goes trade deal with India think again. But even if we do, what would the end result be? We'd have doubled the population covered by our trade deals to around 1 billion people. But we will reduce the size of those trade deals, in monetary terms, to USD:2.0tn (from USD:16-18tn).

Work that out on a per capita basis: average EU resident has a GDP value of USD:35,000, the average Indian resident has a per capita value of USD:2,000. To match the size of the EU economy India would need to grow by 10% a year for more than 20 years (that growth is a long way ahead of the 6% average of the past 15 years - meaning that the reality is it would take nearly 40 years for that growth to be achieved, if it were sustainable - and that relies on the EU economy having 0% actual growth - not "real terms" growth, ahead of inflation, but no growth at all).

What goods and services can you sell someone worth USD:35,000? What can you sell someone worth USD:2,000? Very different propositions I think. If you really wanted growth you'd be trying to work out how you can boost the economies of Southern and Eastern Europe. A modest 2% growth across the EU more than doubles the size of that economy over 40 years, which would still put it well ahead of India.

You need to forget about growth as an indicator, and look at the underlying numbers related to those economies. As I have pointed out several times, the EU, G8 plus China represent more than two-thirds of the global economy - to do better than we are already doing you'd need to more or less have deals with the rest of the world, excluding the above named, and hope that those developing economies develop quite quickly into something that we can do business with in the economy that we have (clue: 80% of our economy is services).
18. (Original post by CherishFreedom)
Point 1: Entirely your own opinion, however it's interesting how you state it in a fact-like manner.
It is a fact that can be derived from logic - I know that's a weak spot for you, but try this: either Davis thinks we are too stupid to work out that he can't possibly do a trade deal that is 10 times the size of the deal that we currently have with the EU (in monetary terms) or that we are too stupid to work out that "land area" isn't a valid way of measuring the scope of a trade deal. Or Davis is too stupid to understand either of these things and is just spouting fantasy figures.

Whatever way you look at it my first point is clearly made out. If you have another interpretation please put it forward.

Point 2: Why would you expect a Brexit politician to say things you, a Remainer, expect? After all, you are trying to criticise him. Also I think you are the only one misinterpreting his statement so far, the rest of us read it in the appropriate context.

And let's be honest, whatever he said he would not be getting your 'respect', so let's not pretend otherwise.
I think if he had said something that was within the bounds of reason, or was in some other way making sense (and you are not arguing that what he has said makes any sense), then I'd find it difficult to criticise what he had said. If he made the claim that he was going to double the size of trade deals (in monetary terms), I could argue that that would seem unlikely, but it wouldn't actually be impossible.

That's my point - what he says is either impossible, or utterly meaningless.
19. (Original post by typonaut)
The UK economy is about USD:2.8tn. I don't think it makes sense to take that out of the equation, because that is, and remains for some time to come, part of the EU economy. But even if we do that takes the remaining EU economy down to USD:13.4-15.7tn. At the lower limit that's 18.3% of the global economy and at the upper limit it is 21.8%.

So a little way to go on your estimating skills.

As to your claims about growth, I don't think you are really grasping the nature of the problem. The countries you describe as having high growth are amongst the poorest per capita in the world, and their growth and economies are fragile to say the least (take Brazil as a good example - supposedly one the great economies of the world a few years ago, now far from it).

Take India as the example often given. It has a very protectionist economy, it is quite difficult to do business there. That's not by accident, it is by design. If you think we're going to get some tariff-free, anything goes trade deal with India think again. But even if we do, what would the end result be? We'd have doubled the population covered by our trade deals to around 1 billion people. But we will reduce the size of those trade deals, in monetary terms, to USD:2.0tn (from USD:16-18tn).

Work that out on a per capita basis: average EU resident has a GDP value of USD:35,000, the average Indian resident has a per capita value of USD:2,000. To match the size of the EU economy India would need to grow by 10% a year for more than 20 years (that growth is a long way ahead of the 6% average of the past 15 years - meaning that the reality is it would take nearly 40 years for that growth to be achieved, if it were sustainable - and that relies on the EU economy having 0% actual growth - not "real terms" growth, ahead of inflation, but no growth at all).

What goods and services can you sell someone worth USD:35,000? What can you sell someone worth USD:2,000? Very different propositions I think. If you really wanted growth you'd be trying to work out how you can boost the economies of Southern and Eastern Europe. A modest 2% growth across the EU more than doubles the size of that economy over 40 years, which would still put it well ahead of India.

You need to forget about growth as an indicator, and look at the underlying numbers related to those economies. As I have pointed out several times, the EU, G8 plus China represent more than two-thirds of the global economy - to do better than we are already doing you'd need to more or less have deals with the rest of the world, excluding the above named, and hope that those developing economies develop quite quickly into something that we can do business with in the economy that we have (clue: 80% of our economy is services).
EU is \$16.220trn (22%)
USA is \$17.947 trn (24.5%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._GDP_(nominal) >> BOTH in decline..

EU = European Union so UK taken out \$2.849trn would leave it with... \$13.371trn which is 18.27% of world, not forgetting its below average growth of 0.5% - 1.5% growth for a decade... so the % would only go down and down, as Germany and UK counted for 2/3 of EU growth... now UK out where that going to come from?

> Europe is still slowest growing region in the world, no one cares about Europe anymore its buying time as the dominant.
> It takes time to rebalance the world from western era, which is coming to an end slowly.
Attached Images

20. (Original post by ckfeister)
EU is \$16.220trn…
All you are doing is proving that you just don't understand the underlying facts of the matter. It doesn't matter that much that Europe's share of global trade is declining (remember one key point here, the UK is still part of Europe, and will never be able to change that), that is an inevitable part of the rest of the world developing. If you look at the historical facts you can see that the size of a region's economy is pretty much tied to it's population. Once you eliminate the advantages in health and technology, that Europe and North America have enjoyed over the past 200 years or so, the rest of the world catches up - but it's going to take a long time.

None of this means that Europe's economy is shrinking - that's the fallacy of the "Project Fantasy". It also doesn't mean that we get a free growth boost from trying to have trade deals with developing nations - their economies just don't match what we can supply to them. It's great for China, because they are making fast moving consumer goods (mobile phones, microwaves, fridges…), 80% of our economy is services, which does not fit with that pattern..

To put that in a better frame, I don't remember the actual data on it, but during the referendum campaign one of the facts stated about our service economy is that we sell more architectural services to a tiny country like Luxembourg (population 550,000) than we do to India (population 1,000,000,000). Those facts are not going to change for 30 or 40 years, at best.

Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: July 29, 2016
Today on TSR

### Exam Jam 2018

Join thousands of students this half term

Poll
Useful resources

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE