Robert Oulds' "What you want to know about the EU" published in 2013 is still timely and even more meaningful than when it was first published; I doubt whether any of its central arguments have been rejected before, we All that is welcome is some updates to the statistics that may further confirm his core debate. In fact, some events since 2013, especially the Syrian immigration crisis, will inevitably increase his status. But to be clear about the outside world: Robert Oulds is a director of the Bruges Group, and he has been running for the UK to withdraw from the EU for the past 20 years. partisan? Yes, but as a party does not make people have an informed opinion, or even a correct opinion. The purpose of criticism is to see what the object is. To do this, one must first understand his subjectivity and build it into the equation. I think Robert Ullz's performance is admirable; for the completeness of this comment, I should distinguish between Robert and I have known him for many years. With this in mind, what is his book?
The book contains a short introduction and then has seven chapters that favor the EU's economic, legal, political and historical operations, especially if they refer to the UK. The titles of these chapters are: EU snapshots, EU issues, impact issues, UK choices, exit methods, exit effects, EU alternatives, and subsequent conclusions chapters and some useful appendices. Some people have recently criticized the quality of the debate: it lacks real information, real analysis, and it's all about the bullets. Everyone fires on the other side. Ok, if you think this is the case, read this book. Oulds provides chapters, verses and statistics on all key issues, not points; in addition, he provides balanced comments. In order to see this correctly: the EU does benefit the UK, and he admits that it is not slow. But for Oulds, the key issue is always the balance of arguments: in other words, cost-benefit analysis, so when reading this book, people are increasingly feeling that although there are some good things in the EU, there are many negatives, any rationality. The status of thinking left there is untenable.
So, what are his arguments? What do I find particularly striking when reading this work? First of all, I like his general observations about how things work. It's like discussing the first principle. A good example is in Chapter 2, "European Issues," which states: "Trade does not require political alliances; in fact, trade barriers are actually created by strengthening trade policies and politicians." In the UK, we are not a The culprit of double thinking? We all know that political interference in business is disastrous because in the past 40 years, there have been so many long-term underperforming industries in nationalism; knowing this, how can British business leaders guarantee the EU? Business will be better, and the EU is not necessarily "nationally regulated". But ' supra-state run'? When you think of this, it is ridiculous: the FOOTSIE 100 chieftain asked the British government to reduce red tape and regulation, and then hinted that our business and economic only hope is in the EU. In order to view this correctly, Chapter 7, "European Alternatives", presents a clear point of view. Switzerland is not a member of the European Union but still trades under two bilateral arrangements. Therefore, it must accept - in its terms - some restrictions, but as Oulds said: "Since 1993, when a single market emerged, the Swiss have adjusted their legal code to make it consistent with about 2,000 people. Legislation instruments. However, the UK and other EU member states have collected more than 20,000 from above. "If we look at this cost again, as Oulds elaborated, the bilateral agreement allows them to get the cost of this market is 550 million. A year in Switzerland and France; if they have full EU membership, the cost will increase to 4.9 billion Swiss francs - a ninefold increase. And this "excludes the inevitable increase in costs of EU legislation"! In other words, they have missed 18,000 legislative instruments since 1993 - more since 2013! Incidentally, these figures are not compiled by Oulds, but based on the research that the Swiss Federal Council itself included in the European report. This is very convincing.
More important than any of the above, however, is that the more common evidence associated with the EU is a factor in the terminal recession. Citing the work of the French economist Professor Jean-Jacques Rosa, "It [EU] implements and strengthens the events of large old companies and bureaucracies, and freezes the hierarchy of industrial and political production at the moment of innovation, requiring new small companies and A lighter government. This is a factor that accelerates the recession. "Of course, this must resonate with us? We know that entrepreneurship depends on flexibility, innovation and vision – the opposite of what EU members have to offer.
Robert Oulds provides more examples of what the EU is doing against the interests of the British as an Englishman. I have hardly mentioned important sovereignty and democratic arguments. Space forbids me to outline his point here, enough to show that as a major point of view of Oulds: the rise of the European political right, the EU likes to characterize itself as an objection, almost certain [especially since his book was published for 3 years] After that, the consequences of the EU are: the democratic deficit ' feels everywhere in Europe, rather than creating stability and security, the EU is instigating widespread opposition to its imperialist and non-democratic condemnation, leading to extremism.
But to return to economic issues, it is best to end in a positive way, because if we leave the EU, what choice do we have? As Oulds explained: quite a lot! He learned more about the situation in various international organizations and situations. Two of them, one of which is ambiguous to most of us, is well known. If we choose to leave, we have high hopes for the progress and success of the wider world. EU. These two organizations are the European Free Trade Association, which is less well known and is also a Commonwealth country. In short, as far as the former is concerned, if it is inconvenient for the EU, then the current four European countries - Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein - have some of the highest populations in any country anywhere. The standard of living is noteworthy. in the world. Because of the suffering that did not really enter the EU. An important statistic cited by Oulds is that in 2011 the European Free Trade Association exported 1.892 billion euros worth of goods to the EU; the United States itself managed only 9 billion euros. This is quite amazing, but if we consider the federation and choose to reactivate the option, then we might be surprised.
John Clydeland, former Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, said in 2001: "We are very concerned about Europe - we need to go out and establish export markets in other parts of the world." Of course, at present, "the UK is based on its own conditions. Invented by the Commonwealth countries to develop their own specific bilateral investment treaties, and the United Kingdom has reached a trade agreement with these tigers [the Commonwealth economies]. In case we forget that the Commonwealth enterprises "are in 54 countries on every inhabited continent on the planet; even the United Kingdom is not the only member of Europe. Malta and Cyprus are members of the Commonwealth." What is even more impressive is: " The Commonwealth has a population of nearly 2.5 billion, close to one-third of the world's population, living in more than eleven and half a million square miles; nearly a quarter of the Earth and # more importantly, this land has Rich natural resources not only provide growth-promoting commodities for the global economy, but also bring real potential to its member states. "As Oulds continues to observe:" Now, Chinese are establishing contacts with these resource-rich countries; Britain's Eurocentrism is making the UK miss out on rich opportunities abroad. "If it continues this way, Britain will certainly regret it 20 years from now.
There is a lot to say about this wonderful book, but space is forbidden. For those who essentially want to understand some of the facts that underpin this debate and stay away from fear and jealousy, this is an indispensable book: only those mad and little English may want to leave our lovely big brother. The idea, the EU.
But I have to end with a critical note about the book, although it's good: given the quality of the research and the citations used, the lack of an index is a major flaw; sometimes a new, updated version - now in time - will correct this Another great read.
Orignal From: This book shows why the UK should leave the EU.
No comments:
Post a Comment